This is my first research paper in english. It's inquiry based so i'm not looking for an answer but asking the question why. This is a link to the goals for portfolio and I was just wondering if someone could read this and just comment on where they see me meeting goals and where I don't. Also if anyone is very good with MLA format let me know if I am using in-text citations correctly and cited works correctly. I included the works cited at the end. Any feed back would be nice considering I really need to pass porfolio and if you don't have any I believe its still an interesting read for students and fans of college football and basketball. MY email is @uwm.edu if you have any questions that need immediate response if not I'll be back later tonight to see if any posts are made. Thanks in advance to anyone that helps or for even opening this thread.
Paper Play
All children are told that one of the greatest joys in life is finding something you love to do for a living. My older brother told me if I could ever be passionate about something that I do for a living "it'll bring your soul fulfillment every day you wake up for the rest of your life, and you'll never feel like your working a day in your life" (Patel). For me and many other children that meant dreams of playing sports at a major university with a full scholarship and then entering the annual draft for the National Football League or National Basketball Association. I was not one of the very select few offered a full scholarship to play football or basketball in the National College Athletic Association's highest class, Division I, but playing sports as a youngster have taught me many life long lessons and for that I'm very appreciative. Even though I don't play sports in college, many other Americans and I have a love for college athletics, mainly basketball and football, because of reasons such as the passion that is exhibited by the young men and women, state and national rivalries, and the fact that college athlete's don't get paid. The latter will be the topic of research in this paper, should Div. I college basketball and football players on full scholarships be paid?
To explain my research into whether or not the NCAA should pay Division I college football players and basketball players, I have broken my paper into sections. First I will provide a minimal background into the college recruiting process, followed by my research into why college athletes should not be paid, then introduce research from proponents of paying college athlete. Then I will look at the some of arguments and possible resolutions and end with my final thoughts.
1. COLLEGE RECRUITING PROCESS
College universities recruit standout high school athletes around the nation and internationally at a young age. Colleges offer the most talented players full athletic scholarships, commonly known as "full rides". The athletes then have to sign a letter of commitment to the university of their choice, and in return they receive a full scholarship. The NCAA Division I manual allows universities to offer the most full scholarships for football (85), just because of the shear size of the team, with men's basketball coming in third (13) (2010-2011 NCAA Division I Manual). The fact that theses ports are the most popular with fans and generate massive revenues is why I chose to limit my research to just men's basketball and football. The full scholarship provides the student athlete funding to attend college but "Per NCAA rules, full scholarships do not exceed tuition and fees, room, board, and required course-related books" ("Behind the Blue Disk"). Along with getting college paid for, student athletes also get to hone their talents with the use of personal trainers, experienced coaches, and the best facilities possible. The college gets a star recruit, which makes their program better and the university more attractive to other star recruits, students, and fans. The more talented a team becomes the more games they are likely to win. Along with winning comes the opportunity to play in conference title games and potentially for a national title, which can bring in television contracts worth millions of dollars. The national exposure that the team receives combined with winning translates into a greater campus unity for the students, the alumni, and surrounding community.
2. WHY DIV. I BASKETBALL AND FOOTBALL PLAYER SHOULD NOT BE PAID
When you ask most people whether or not they think college football and basketball players should be paid the number one response is they're already being paid. Their payment comes in the form attending a major university without having to pay for tuition, books, or room and board. The cost of attendance is the amount they are being paid for their services. According to a study done by the College Board, tuition and fees at public universities topped thirteen thousand dollars per year in 2010, while tuition and fees at private four-year universities hit the twenty-nine thousand dollar barrier for one academic year (College Board). Showing how much student athletes are already raking in per year for doing what they love, while gaining an education. In an article published by the NCAA, the case is clearly made that the hard work that all student athletes exhibit is already rewarded financially. In this article Jay Paterno, a football coach at Penn State, and son of iconic coach Joe Paterno, writes "Student athletes are asked to work no more than 20 hours a week for 21 weeks with at least one mandatory day off during the season, and 23 weeks for 8 hours a week during the offseason. This also leaves them with 8 weeks of free time; these are all NCAA-mandated time limits (1). On average student athlete's work less than 12 hours a week without including their 8 weeks off. Using these time limits set by the NCAA and the costs that Penn State College pays football and basketball players for each full scholarship they offer, which is $33,967 for instate students, and $50,286 for out of state students. Paterno, did the math and found all student athletes on full scholarship will earn $56.25 per hour for instate students and $83.25 per hour for out of state students for a part time job (1). Paterno's article shows that football and basketball players are already being rewarded for their hard work and is a prime example for not paying college football and basketball players on the basis that they are already being paid. Last year Texas Southern University Athletic Director Dr. Charles McClelland was quoted in an interview with William Ford saying "Just as students use loans to pay for school, see debt as investing in their futures, the NCAA sees giving full scholarships to Division One football and basketball players as an investment for our student athletes in a college education" (Ford 11). McClelland's statement is exactly what the NCAA's standpoint is; an investment in education is enough payment for student athletes. Numbers help to prove their point, a IRS report showed that an individual with a bachelor's degree stands to make twenty thousand dollars a year more than a high school graduate (IRS). They believe that a full scholarship will leave the student-athlete compensated for his talents, on their way to being college educated with a degree, and with no school incurred debt. Which is a good deal considering the NCAA has reported "more than 400,000 student-athletes who go pro in something other than sports" ("Why Student Athletes are Not Paid"). Even though the NCAA stipulates what is covered under a full scholarship in their rulebook it is common knowledge that a full scholarship includes more than just tuition, board, meals, and books. On top of the nearly $11,000 per year average that full scholarships are worth student athletes are also provided with intangible perks such as priority registration for classes, full-time personal tutors, and health care. Those are important but the biggest perks of going to college on a full athletic scholarship is getting a sports education and national exposure to showcase your talents. The students are coached by some of brightest minds in the sport; some of these coaches such as Steve Spurrier of Florida and Dave Wannstedt of Pitt have previously coached at the professional level. So its not hard to believe why some would say that Division I college football and basketball players already being compensated.
Another reason why college football and basketball players on full scholarships should not be paid came directly from the definition of Amateur and the NCAA's mandatory rules of amateurism. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines amateur as "one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession." So full scholarship basketball and football players, who are all amateurs, would be defined as students that play basketball and football as a past time to education. The NCAA takes amateurism a step farther and NCAA Bylaw 12 says to be certified as an amateur; an athlete must refrain from the following activities:
Contracts with a professional team; Salary for participating in athletics; Prize money above actual and necessary expenses; Play with professionals; Tryouts, practice or competition with a professional team; Benefits from an agent or prospective agent; Agreement to be represented by an agent and Organized-competition rule. ("NCAA Amateurism Certification")
The full scholarship commitment letter, in which bylaw 12 is included, clearly states that student athletes cannot make money from participating in athletics or accept gifts from agents. So the NCAA already has in writing a promise from student athletes that they cannot be paid to play by the schools or by outside interests. To opponents of not paying college athletes this may sound like a way for the NCAA to handcuff the players from getting paid, but economics professor, and author Thad Williamson, brings up the valid point in his article about the downfalls of paying college athletes, "Bad as They Wanna be [sic]", he states "The appeal of college athletics has long rested on their "amateur" status, the notion that the kids play mostly for the love of the game, without the pressures and influences that suffuse professional sports" (Williamson 7). What Williamson is saying is that the NCAA would be jeopardizing one of the main reasons college football and basketball is so popular if they were to pay the players and this would likely lead to a drop in fans.
Also the NCAA fears that if football and basketball players in college were paid the idea of student athlete would not remain because now they would be paid minor league players. This would cause a drift away from the idea of a student athlete and from the core idea of the NCAA's mission statement, which is to "integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount" ("Behind the Blue Disk"). So another reason the NCAA believes student athletes shouldn't be paid is because education comes first and if we paid players, the classroom would be taking a backseat to the playing field.
Another finding that must be mentioned is the point of athletic scholarships is to earn a degree. It's not an internship or a minor league for professional sports teams but a chance to attend college, gain a degree, and grow as a person. Many college basketball and football players eyes light up, when they see student athletes like Sam Bradford leave Oklahoma after his sophomore season and get drafted number 1 pick overall in the NFL draft and receive a $50 million dollar guarantee, but the real truth never crosses their mind (Shefter). Hardly any student athlete will go on to be a professional. Division I basketball and football players combined send 3 percent of players to the NBA and NFL (Estimated probability of Competing in Athletics Beyond"). These numbers show that most players will never see a major payday. It also helps to answer the question of why they shouldn't be paid, because most players will never be paid for their athletic talents in their life, so why should they be paid in college? After college they will need education to fall back on when they enter the real world, and players will realize that the money they make with their college degree that their talents we're fairly compensated. Student athletes that graduate will need something to call a career, and with the NCAA's focus on education it would be wrong to pay players and give them the false hope that they can make a living playing sports because the reality is that most of them will not.
Lets say we can somehow get past the NCAA amateurism rules and the fact that Division I football and basketball players get paid already. Where is the money to pay the students going to come from? It cannot come from the universities because many are losing money on athletics. In a study jointly conducted by the NCAA and USA Today's sports writer, Steve Berkowitz, they found that "A little more than half of the I-A schools (67 of 119) made money on football or men's basketball (68) in fiscal 2006, based on revenues those programs generated" (Berkowitz). So if most college football and basketball teams are loosing money for their university, where is the money supposed to come from? This makes a logical case that basketball and football players can't be paid is because most universities athletics programs don't have money to give them. The NCAA can't just allow the schools that generate profits to pay their players because that will lead to an unfair advantage between universities. Student athletes will obviously want to attend schools that pay money. The bigger schools will get all the star recruits and smaller schools will most likely have to cut their programs. It will widen the gap between major universities and smaller universities, which collectively play in Div. I. This widening of the gap caused by paying players at some schools and not at others will affect NCAA football and basketball greatly. The reason being is Americans loves the underdog. This is why the NCAA basketball's March Madness and Footballs Bowl Championship season are so popular. Fans want to see teams play for their university and something bigger than themselves and paying basketball and football players in college would just lead to selfish players like we already have in the NBA and NFL. So if programs are losing money helping their athletic programs stay afloat, there is no money that can be spent on paying basketball and football players.
3. WHY DIV. I BASKETBALL AND FOOTBALL PLAYER SHOULD BE PAID
Many people live by the motto if its not broken, don't fix it but in college basketball and football it's hard to hide behind that rationale. The NCAA student athlete full-scholarship system is deeply flawed. The first reason is the full-scholarship given is not covering all costs related to tuition. When I took a look into what the NCAA calls a full-athletic scholarship and the cost covered by it, I found some disparities between what a full scholarship covers and the full cost of attendance. If you get a full scholarship you can forget about having to dish out any money to go to college right? That is not always the case as Ramogi Huma, former UCLA linebacker and founder of the National College Players Association, emphasizes during an interview.
"It's really deceptive to use the words 'full scholarship.' ... There's never an explanation for recruited athletes that the price tag for attending school falls short of the scholarship amount. The average current full athletic scholarship falls about $3,000 a year short of what the student-athlete college experience actually costs" (Ford 11).
Huma brings up a valid point when talking about why players should be paid beyond their full scholarships. If they were promised the costs of attendance, why are students still going into debt? Huma explains that this difference of the full scholarship and the cost of tuition come from normal college activities "from campus parking fees to calculators and computer disks required for classes" (Ford 11). He and many other current and former athletes believes these items, which are necessary for all college students should be covered under their scholarships. This is a prime example for why student athletes should be paid; they are not given "full rides" as everyone has come to call them. A study conducted by the Ithaca College Graduate Program in Sport Management shows the average debt for student athletes per year is $3,000 but also found the range of out-of-pocket expenses for a "full" scholarship student-athlete is $200/year to $10,962/year depending on the college ("Scholarship Shortfall Study"). So as the numbers show basketball and football players are not given "full rides" they have to be students, athletes, and still worry about how to make ends meet just to keep their scholarship. These additional school related expenses can add up quick and greatly effect the quality of education student athletes receive, especially with the time constraints that basketball and football players are under. The NCAA says player's only work on average 12 hours a week but that doesn't include weight lifting schedules or one-on-one training that most football and basketball players must participate in to see playing time. Most college students have problems borrowing money to begin with, now you have a student athlete that has two commitments and has to come up with on average 6 thousand dollars just to stay in school and keep their scholarship. So if a full scholarship doesn't actually cover the entire costs of attendance, shouldn't the NCAA and Universities raise the value of these scholarships for basketball and football players, or just pay them the difference?
Another reason the NCAA and universities should pay college football and basketball players is because of the money they generate from television contracts. In April of 2011, the NCAA signed a deal with CBS and Turner Broadcasting for $10.8 billion dollars for rights to NCAA's March Madness Basketball Tournament. The NCAA previously inked a deal for college footballs Bowl Championship Series with FOX for $500 million (Mandel). As you can see college football and basketball is helping the NCAA make a lot of money and that is one of the backbones for the argument that football and basketball players in Div. I should be paid. Even while helping rake in such large amounts of money for the NCAA the only people that will not see a single dollar bill are the players themselves. With money trickling down all the way from CBS to the stadium workers, college basketball and football players have their hands tied by the NCAA under the rules of amateurism, what are they to do? I think personally think that the NBA and NFL need to step up and help colleges compensate the all football and basketball players, so they have no worries except school and athletics. They are essentially free minor leagues for the NFL and NBA, so why shouldn't they help prospective employees? As a fan I don't want to see the talent pool dry up for professional leagues because of issues involving money. If the NCAA cannot take care of their football and basketball players, it will lead to a drop in talent at the professional level. I'm not a proponent for giving college football and basketball players thousands of dollars but all players deserves some type of compensation to help cover normal daily costs, that a full-scholarship does not address. The case made by many sports commentators, college football, and basketball players is they should be paid because they are the workhorses of most athletic programs. One for example is Micheal Rosenberg, a leading sports reporter with Sports Illustrated says, "Football and men's basketball pay for other sports, just like a business school often subsidizes the philosophy department" (Rosenberg). They are being used not just for football or basketball but to provide funding for less popular sports and activities on campus. So if football and men's basketball are helping less popular sports with funding shouldn't their players be paid for not just their talent but being a source of income for other activities on campus? In my opinion it would be for the greater good to pay these players that help keep less popular sports alive on campus because it will lead to a more attractive institution for other prospective students and athletes.
Maybe the biggest reason college players deserve pay is that it will clean up the game. In the last few years the NCAA and universities have had their name dragged through the mud by college football and basketball players. It's not rare to hear of former or current Div. I basketball and football players or an entire program being suspended or penalized by the NCAA for accepting payments from a booster or agent, or engaging in what the NCAA calls illegal behavior. "In a June 24th, 1996 issue of The NCAA News, " Studies indicate that 75 percent of underclassmen have received cash or gifts from an agent." That's a pretty high number, three out of every four are involved in illegal activities involving agents, and 90 percent of projected first round draft picks have had contact with an agent" (Wulf 94). Wulf's article shows this is not a recent problem and has been going on for years in the NCAA. The problem still hasn't been address properly because in the last 5 years football superstars Reggie Bush, AJ Green, and Dez White have all been found guilty by the NCAA for illegal payments. This is a clear violation of the NCAA amateur rules but whom does it really affect? All three of those players now play in the NFL making millions of dollars. I highly doubt they care. The universities on the other hand are left with a bad reputation and a crippled program. The NCAA penalized USC by giving them "Four years of probation, a two-year football postseason ban, and taking 30 scholarships away" ("Bowl Ban for Southern California"). So when athletes break the rules it's really the schools and innocent athletes who get penalized. With so many football and basketball players coming from underprivileged areas and not having the money to make ends meet once at school, you can understand how many of these young men rationalize taking illegal payments. That is why the proponents of paying basketball and football players believe that if the NCAA and universities paid players they would be much more likely to not engage in illegal behavior and accept un-authorized payments from others. Paying football and basketball players would lead to fewer violations by players and less sanctions to universities. If we don't find a way to help college football and basketball players make ends meet, and they continue to take illegal payments, it will take away value away from the degrees of graduates who worked very hard and had to pay their own way through college to earn a degree. As student this is important to me because I don't want the name of my school to be associated with breaking the rules, whether it be the administration, the athletic department, or the student body because it reflect negatively on my college degree.
4. POSSIBLE REMEDIES
As I covered earlier the NCAA believes that a full scholarship is enough compensation for an athletes commitment to play basketball or football at a school but National College Players Association founder, Ragomi Huma, says that the full scholarship given to student athletes is not enough, and students on average end up with $3,000 in debt after every year ("Scholarship Shortfall Study"). So what can we do to fix this discrepancy? Flint Harris, A former academic adviser at two SEC schools who has helped many student athletes make ends meet, says the NCAA doesn't have to do anything. It's the players who are not utilizing all of the options available. Many football players and basketball players in Division one generally come from underprivileged background and will be able for up to $5,500 in Pell Grants. There is also a NCAA funded student-athlete opportunity fund that gives universities around $200,000 for all student athlete needs that is distributed by a senior staff member in the athletic department that finds the expense reasonable (Harris). Even with that said the NCAA does recognize that the full-scholarship package is not covering many school related expenses for athletes. This was the topic of last weeks NCAA retreat where 50 Division I chancellors and presidents met with NCAA President Mark Emmert. They are trying to come up with a plan that "can close the gap between the cost of going to school and the scholarship given to student-athletes" ("What is the full cost of attendance initiative being discussed"). The importance of bridging this gap is so that players can focus on school and athletics, rather then be influenced by outside parties and illegal payments just to make ends meet. No fan, including myself wants to see the NCAA or their favorite schools being hit with penalties from players accepting these payments but in all honesty it must be very tempting because I personally know how hard it is to make ends meet while attending college. What matters about the differences between what Emmert and Flint said is that Flint's idea is only beneficial to underprivileged players, whereas Emmerts idea would help all football, basketball, or any other student on a full scholarship. Under Emmert's idea the NCAA could keep all the rules same and still provide players with money to make ends meet. This would lead to players being able to focus more on school and keep illegal behavior at bay.
In his article Williamson says that "appeal of college athletics has long rested on their "amateur" status (7) and paying players to play basketball or football would take away from that appeal. What about Olympic athletes then? It wasn't long ago that only amateurs could compete in the Olympics ("Amateurism"). That didn't take away from the appeal of watching someone represent his or her country in a sporting event. Could the NCAA shape a new system that follows the Olympic amateur system and not lose any fans? The main difference between amateurs under the NCAA and amateurs in the Olympics was that athletes could accept prize money and endorsements when they represented their country. NCPA Founder, Ragomi Huma agrees and is quoted as saying " Give players access to the non-professional free market by allowing them to enter commercial agreements. They would be paid for their fame just as AMATEUR Olympic athletes have been allowed to do" (NCPA). This is important because the NCAA or universities wouldn't have to provide the money. It would also provide adequate payment to the potential 3 percent of college basketball and football players that will be playing at the next level. Considering this group of players that are most often taking illegal payments, they would have no need to engage in that behavior anymore. The NCAA could then return their focus back to true student athletes and education.
Another issue that I found while researching was where is the money to pay the basketball and football players going to come from? The NCAA signed massive television deals with Turner, Fox, and CBS but in the study by Berkowitz and the NCAA, it was found most athletic programs are still loosing money. So back to the question, where is the money supposed to come from? Michael Wilbon, a highly respected ESPN commentator and one of the nations most respected sports writers, proposal is to give basketball and football players who do produce revenues for everyone involved in the sport a little bit of this money made from television deals. He says
Paying players out of individual athletic department budgets is beyond impractical...but it's another thing entirely for the students who play for revenue-producing teams be somehow compensated from the lucrative television/radio/Internet rights fees they make wholly possible. (Wilbon)
What he is saying is if the universities can't provide money to the basketball and football players, we can't end the conversation there. The money needed to pay and support the basketball and football players can come from the major deals that NCAA has signed with FOX, CBS, and turner. The reason is without these two sports universities would have to cut less possible sports and the student athletes are the people that make the entire entity of college football and basketball profitable for everyone involved (Meshefejian 16). As a student I don't want to see any programs cut from my school, with state and government funding already being cut to schools, we need to support the people that are steadily bringing in funding.
5. FINAL THOUGHTS
Through my research I found a lot of interesting information. Even as I near the conclusion of my paper I still have a lot of unanswered questions. The idea of paying college athletes poses many new problems that would have to be addressed. The idea of not paying college athletes still leaves me asking why shouldn't we? The main thing I want reader to remember is that college is tough and that's part of the learning experience. You can't always get what you want without making sacrifices and this stands true when it comes to the topic of whether or not to pay college football and basketball players on full-scholarships. Many athletes and people in the sports world are quick to say we need to pay the players or they shouldn't be paid but I personally think the NCAA recognizes the different problems that are prevalent in college basketball and football. I also think they are doing a good job in acting slow and focusing on education before just throwing money at players and ending up in a worst place then they are now. All tuition paying students help pay for a portion of the athletic fund that provides these full scholarships for student athletes and I want to see my school excel academically and athletically because it gives my degree and university added value. The current approach works but it does need to be reformed but any reform will not come with criticism and create other issues that will need to be addressed. This is important to me because as an avid fan of both sports, I don't want to see them fall apart or negatively impacted because of money. As long as there are future professionals basketball and football players playing along side true student-athletes the problem of compensation with be brought up every march and during then again during footballs bowl season unless something is done in the near future.
Works Cited
"2010-2011 NCAA Division I Manual." Frontline. PBS.org, n.d.
"Amateur." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster
"Behind the Blue Disk: How Do Athletic Scholarships Work?" NCAA.org.
Berkowitz, Steve. "Few Athletic Programs in Black; Most Need Money." USA Today.
"Bowl Ban Among Penalties for Southern California." NCAA.org. National Collegiate Athletic Association.
"Estimated probability of Competing in Athletics Beyond the High School Interscholastic
Level." NCAA.Org. National Collegiate Athletic Association. n.d.
Ford, William. "Even Playing Field?" Diverse: Issues in Higher Education. Vol. 28 Issue 6 (2011): 11-12.
Harris, Flint. "Football Players Receive $17,000 Annually In Cash All within NCAA Rules."
Mandel, Stewart. "TV Deals for Major Conferences."
Sports Illustrated.
Meshefejian, Krikor. "Pay to Play: Should College Athletes Be Paid?" The Journal of the Business Law Society. 23 March 2005.
"NCAA Amateurism Certification." NCAA.org. National Collegiate Athletic Association.
"NCPA Proposal: Reggie Bush, Agents and "the Amatuer Problem"." NCPA.org.
Patel, Shawn. Personal interview.
Paterno, Jay. "Pay Student-Athletes? They're Already Getting a Great Deal." NCAA.org.
National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Rosenberg, Michael. "Change is Long Overdue: College Football Players Should Be Paid."
Schefter, Adam. "Rams Give Bradford $50M Guaranteed." Espn.com. ESPN.
NCPA News Release.
"Trends in College Pricing." College Board. 19 Oct. 2004,
"What is the Full Cost of Attendance Initiative being Discussed." NCAA.Org.
"Where Does the Money Go?" NCAA.org. National Collegiate Athletic Association.
"Why Student Athletes are Not Paid to Play." NCAA.org. National Collegiate Athletic Association. n.d. Web.
Wilbon, Michael. "College Athletes Deserved to be Paid." ESPN.com. ESPN.
Wulf, Steve. "Tote that ball, life that revenue: why not pay college athletes, who put in long Hours to Fill Stadiums-and Coffers?" Time: 148.19.
Paper Play
All children are told that one of the greatest joys in life is finding something you love to do for a living. My older brother told me if I could ever be passionate about something that I do for a living "it'll bring your soul fulfillment every day you wake up for the rest of your life, and you'll never feel like your working a day in your life" (Patel). For me and many other children that meant dreams of playing sports at a major university with a full scholarship and then entering the annual draft for the National Football League or National Basketball Association. I was not one of the very select few offered a full scholarship to play football or basketball in the National College Athletic Association's highest class, Division I, but playing sports as a youngster have taught me many life long lessons and for that I'm very appreciative. Even though I don't play sports in college, many other Americans and I have a love for college athletics, mainly basketball and football, because of reasons such as the passion that is exhibited by the young men and women, state and national rivalries, and the fact that college athlete's don't get paid. The latter will be the topic of research in this paper, should Div. I college basketball and football players on full scholarships be paid?
To explain my research into whether or not the NCAA should pay Division I college football players and basketball players, I have broken my paper into sections. First I will provide a minimal background into the college recruiting process, followed by my research into why college athletes should not be paid, then introduce research from proponents of paying college athlete. Then I will look at the some of arguments and possible resolutions and end with my final thoughts.
1. COLLEGE RECRUITING PROCESS
College universities recruit standout high school athletes around the nation and internationally at a young age. Colleges offer the most talented players full athletic scholarships, commonly known as "full rides". The athletes then have to sign a letter of commitment to the university of their choice, and in return they receive a full scholarship. The NCAA Division I manual allows universities to offer the most full scholarships for football (85), just because of the shear size of the team, with men's basketball coming in third (13) (2010-2011 NCAA Division I Manual). The fact that theses ports are the most popular with fans and generate massive revenues is why I chose to limit my research to just men's basketball and football. The full scholarship provides the student athlete funding to attend college but "Per NCAA rules, full scholarships do not exceed tuition and fees, room, board, and required course-related books" ("Behind the Blue Disk"). Along with getting college paid for, student athletes also get to hone their talents with the use of personal trainers, experienced coaches, and the best facilities possible. The college gets a star recruit, which makes their program better and the university more attractive to other star recruits, students, and fans. The more talented a team becomes the more games they are likely to win. Along with winning comes the opportunity to play in conference title games and potentially for a national title, which can bring in television contracts worth millions of dollars. The national exposure that the team receives combined with winning translates into a greater campus unity for the students, the alumni, and surrounding community.
2. WHY DIV. I BASKETBALL AND FOOTBALL PLAYER SHOULD NOT BE PAID
When you ask most people whether or not they think college football and basketball players should be paid the number one response is they're already being paid. Their payment comes in the form attending a major university without having to pay for tuition, books, or room and board. The cost of attendance is the amount they are being paid for their services. According to a study done by the College Board, tuition and fees at public universities topped thirteen thousand dollars per year in 2010, while tuition and fees at private four-year universities hit the twenty-nine thousand dollar barrier for one academic year (College Board). Showing how much student athletes are already raking in per year for doing what they love, while gaining an education. In an article published by the NCAA, the case is clearly made that the hard work that all student athletes exhibit is already rewarded financially. In this article Jay Paterno, a football coach at Penn State, and son of iconic coach Joe Paterno, writes "Student athletes are asked to work no more than 20 hours a week for 21 weeks with at least one mandatory day off during the season, and 23 weeks for 8 hours a week during the offseason. This also leaves them with 8 weeks of free time; these are all NCAA-mandated time limits (1). On average student athlete's work less than 12 hours a week without including their 8 weeks off. Using these time limits set by the NCAA and the costs that Penn State College pays football and basketball players for each full scholarship they offer, which is $33,967 for instate students, and $50,286 for out of state students. Paterno, did the math and found all student athletes on full scholarship will earn $56.25 per hour for instate students and $83.25 per hour for out of state students for a part time job (1). Paterno's article shows that football and basketball players are already being rewarded for their hard work and is a prime example for not paying college football and basketball players on the basis that they are already being paid. Last year Texas Southern University Athletic Director Dr. Charles McClelland was quoted in an interview with William Ford saying "Just as students use loans to pay for school, see debt as investing in their futures, the NCAA sees giving full scholarships to Division One football and basketball players as an investment for our student athletes in a college education" (Ford 11). McClelland's statement is exactly what the NCAA's standpoint is; an investment in education is enough payment for student athletes. Numbers help to prove their point, a IRS report showed that an individual with a bachelor's degree stands to make twenty thousand dollars a year more than a high school graduate (IRS). They believe that a full scholarship will leave the student-athlete compensated for his talents, on their way to being college educated with a degree, and with no school incurred debt. Which is a good deal considering the NCAA has reported "more than 400,000 student-athletes who go pro in something other than sports" ("Why Student Athletes are Not Paid"). Even though the NCAA stipulates what is covered under a full scholarship in their rulebook it is common knowledge that a full scholarship includes more than just tuition, board, meals, and books. On top of the nearly $11,000 per year average that full scholarships are worth student athletes are also provided with intangible perks such as priority registration for classes, full-time personal tutors, and health care. Those are important but the biggest perks of going to college on a full athletic scholarship is getting a sports education and national exposure to showcase your talents. The students are coached by some of brightest minds in the sport; some of these coaches such as Steve Spurrier of Florida and Dave Wannstedt of Pitt have previously coached at the professional level. So its not hard to believe why some would say that Division I college football and basketball players already being compensated.
Another reason why college football and basketball players on full scholarships should not be paid came directly from the definition of Amateur and the NCAA's mandatory rules of amateurism. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines amateur as "one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession." So full scholarship basketball and football players, who are all amateurs, would be defined as students that play basketball and football as a past time to education. The NCAA takes amateurism a step farther and NCAA Bylaw 12 says to be certified as an amateur; an athlete must refrain from the following activities:
Contracts with a professional team; Salary for participating in athletics; Prize money above actual and necessary expenses; Play with professionals; Tryouts, practice or competition with a professional team; Benefits from an agent or prospective agent; Agreement to be represented by an agent and Organized-competition rule. ("NCAA Amateurism Certification")
The full scholarship commitment letter, in which bylaw 12 is included, clearly states that student athletes cannot make money from participating in athletics or accept gifts from agents. So the NCAA already has in writing a promise from student athletes that they cannot be paid to play by the schools or by outside interests. To opponents of not paying college athletes this may sound like a way for the NCAA to handcuff the players from getting paid, but economics professor, and author Thad Williamson, brings up the valid point in his article about the downfalls of paying college athletes, "Bad as They Wanna be [sic]", he states "The appeal of college athletics has long rested on their "amateur" status, the notion that the kids play mostly for the love of the game, without the pressures and influences that suffuse professional sports" (Williamson 7). What Williamson is saying is that the NCAA would be jeopardizing one of the main reasons college football and basketball is so popular if they were to pay the players and this would likely lead to a drop in fans.
Also the NCAA fears that if football and basketball players in college were paid the idea of student athlete would not remain because now they would be paid minor league players. This would cause a drift away from the idea of a student athlete and from the core idea of the NCAA's mission statement, which is to "integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount" ("Behind the Blue Disk"). So another reason the NCAA believes student athletes shouldn't be paid is because education comes first and if we paid players, the classroom would be taking a backseat to the playing field.
Another finding that must be mentioned is the point of athletic scholarships is to earn a degree. It's not an internship or a minor league for professional sports teams but a chance to attend college, gain a degree, and grow as a person. Many college basketball and football players eyes light up, when they see student athletes like Sam Bradford leave Oklahoma after his sophomore season and get drafted number 1 pick overall in the NFL draft and receive a $50 million dollar guarantee, but the real truth never crosses their mind (Shefter). Hardly any student athlete will go on to be a professional. Division I basketball and football players combined send 3 percent of players to the NBA and NFL (Estimated probability of Competing in Athletics Beyond"). These numbers show that most players will never see a major payday. It also helps to answer the question of why they shouldn't be paid, because most players will never be paid for their athletic talents in their life, so why should they be paid in college? After college they will need education to fall back on when they enter the real world, and players will realize that the money they make with their college degree that their talents we're fairly compensated. Student athletes that graduate will need something to call a career, and with the NCAA's focus on education it would be wrong to pay players and give them the false hope that they can make a living playing sports because the reality is that most of them will not.
Lets say we can somehow get past the NCAA amateurism rules and the fact that Division I football and basketball players get paid already. Where is the money to pay the students going to come from? It cannot come from the universities because many are losing money on athletics. In a study jointly conducted by the NCAA and USA Today's sports writer, Steve Berkowitz, they found that "A little more than half of the I-A schools (67 of 119) made money on football or men's basketball (68) in fiscal 2006, based on revenues those programs generated" (Berkowitz). So if most college football and basketball teams are loosing money for their university, where is the money supposed to come from? This makes a logical case that basketball and football players can't be paid is because most universities athletics programs don't have money to give them. The NCAA can't just allow the schools that generate profits to pay their players because that will lead to an unfair advantage between universities. Student athletes will obviously want to attend schools that pay money. The bigger schools will get all the star recruits and smaller schools will most likely have to cut their programs. It will widen the gap between major universities and smaller universities, which collectively play in Div. I. This widening of the gap caused by paying players at some schools and not at others will affect NCAA football and basketball greatly. The reason being is Americans loves the underdog. This is why the NCAA basketball's March Madness and Footballs Bowl Championship season are so popular. Fans want to see teams play for their university and something bigger than themselves and paying basketball and football players in college would just lead to selfish players like we already have in the NBA and NFL. So if programs are losing money helping their athletic programs stay afloat, there is no money that can be spent on paying basketball and football players.
3. WHY DIV. I BASKETBALL AND FOOTBALL PLAYER SHOULD BE PAID
Many people live by the motto if its not broken, don't fix it but in college basketball and football it's hard to hide behind that rationale. The NCAA student athlete full-scholarship system is deeply flawed. The first reason is the full-scholarship given is not covering all costs related to tuition. When I took a look into what the NCAA calls a full-athletic scholarship and the cost covered by it, I found some disparities between what a full scholarship covers and the full cost of attendance. If you get a full scholarship you can forget about having to dish out any money to go to college right? That is not always the case as Ramogi Huma, former UCLA linebacker and founder of the National College Players Association, emphasizes during an interview.
"It's really deceptive to use the words 'full scholarship.' ... There's never an explanation for recruited athletes that the price tag for attending school falls short of the scholarship amount. The average current full athletic scholarship falls about $3,000 a year short of what the student-athlete college experience actually costs" (Ford 11).
Huma brings up a valid point when talking about why players should be paid beyond their full scholarships. If they were promised the costs of attendance, why are students still going into debt? Huma explains that this difference of the full scholarship and the cost of tuition come from normal college activities "from campus parking fees to calculators and computer disks required for classes" (Ford 11). He and many other current and former athletes believes these items, which are necessary for all college students should be covered under their scholarships. This is a prime example for why student athletes should be paid; they are not given "full rides" as everyone has come to call them. A study conducted by the Ithaca College Graduate Program in Sport Management shows the average debt for student athletes per year is $3,000 but also found the range of out-of-pocket expenses for a "full" scholarship student-athlete is $200/year to $10,962/year depending on the college ("Scholarship Shortfall Study"). So as the numbers show basketball and football players are not given "full rides" they have to be students, athletes, and still worry about how to make ends meet just to keep their scholarship. These additional school related expenses can add up quick and greatly effect the quality of education student athletes receive, especially with the time constraints that basketball and football players are under. The NCAA says player's only work on average 12 hours a week but that doesn't include weight lifting schedules or one-on-one training that most football and basketball players must participate in to see playing time. Most college students have problems borrowing money to begin with, now you have a student athlete that has two commitments and has to come up with on average 6 thousand dollars just to stay in school and keep their scholarship. So if a full scholarship doesn't actually cover the entire costs of attendance, shouldn't the NCAA and Universities raise the value of these scholarships for basketball and football players, or just pay them the difference?
Another reason the NCAA and universities should pay college football and basketball players is because of the money they generate from television contracts. In April of 2011, the NCAA signed a deal with CBS and Turner Broadcasting for $10.8 billion dollars for rights to NCAA's March Madness Basketball Tournament. The NCAA previously inked a deal for college footballs Bowl Championship Series with FOX for $500 million (Mandel). As you can see college football and basketball is helping the NCAA make a lot of money and that is one of the backbones for the argument that football and basketball players in Div. I should be paid. Even while helping rake in such large amounts of money for the NCAA the only people that will not see a single dollar bill are the players themselves. With money trickling down all the way from CBS to the stadium workers, college basketball and football players have their hands tied by the NCAA under the rules of amateurism, what are they to do? I think personally think that the NBA and NFL need to step up and help colleges compensate the all football and basketball players, so they have no worries except school and athletics. They are essentially free minor leagues for the NFL and NBA, so why shouldn't they help prospective employees? As a fan I don't want to see the talent pool dry up for professional leagues because of issues involving money. If the NCAA cannot take care of their football and basketball players, it will lead to a drop in talent at the professional level. I'm not a proponent for giving college football and basketball players thousands of dollars but all players deserves some type of compensation to help cover normal daily costs, that a full-scholarship does not address. The case made by many sports commentators, college football, and basketball players is they should be paid because they are the workhorses of most athletic programs. One for example is Micheal Rosenberg, a leading sports reporter with Sports Illustrated says, "Football and men's basketball pay for other sports, just like a business school often subsidizes the philosophy department" (Rosenberg). They are being used not just for football or basketball but to provide funding for less popular sports and activities on campus. So if football and men's basketball are helping less popular sports with funding shouldn't their players be paid for not just their talent but being a source of income for other activities on campus? In my opinion it would be for the greater good to pay these players that help keep less popular sports alive on campus because it will lead to a more attractive institution for other prospective students and athletes.
Maybe the biggest reason college players deserve pay is that it will clean up the game. In the last few years the NCAA and universities have had their name dragged through the mud by college football and basketball players. It's not rare to hear of former or current Div. I basketball and football players or an entire program being suspended or penalized by the NCAA for accepting payments from a booster or agent, or engaging in what the NCAA calls illegal behavior. "In a June 24th, 1996 issue of The NCAA News, " Studies indicate that 75 percent of underclassmen have received cash or gifts from an agent." That's a pretty high number, three out of every four are involved in illegal activities involving agents, and 90 percent of projected first round draft picks have had contact with an agent" (Wulf 94). Wulf's article shows this is not a recent problem and has been going on for years in the NCAA. The problem still hasn't been address properly because in the last 5 years football superstars Reggie Bush, AJ Green, and Dez White have all been found guilty by the NCAA for illegal payments. This is a clear violation of the NCAA amateur rules but whom does it really affect? All three of those players now play in the NFL making millions of dollars. I highly doubt they care. The universities on the other hand are left with a bad reputation and a crippled program. The NCAA penalized USC by giving them "Four years of probation, a two-year football postseason ban, and taking 30 scholarships away" ("Bowl Ban for Southern California"). So when athletes break the rules it's really the schools and innocent athletes who get penalized. With so many football and basketball players coming from underprivileged areas and not having the money to make ends meet once at school, you can understand how many of these young men rationalize taking illegal payments. That is why the proponents of paying basketball and football players believe that if the NCAA and universities paid players they would be much more likely to not engage in illegal behavior and accept un-authorized payments from others. Paying football and basketball players would lead to fewer violations by players and less sanctions to universities. If we don't find a way to help college football and basketball players make ends meet, and they continue to take illegal payments, it will take away value away from the degrees of graduates who worked very hard and had to pay their own way through college to earn a degree. As student this is important to me because I don't want the name of my school to be associated with breaking the rules, whether it be the administration, the athletic department, or the student body because it reflect negatively on my college degree.
4. POSSIBLE REMEDIES
As I covered earlier the NCAA believes that a full scholarship is enough compensation for an athletes commitment to play basketball or football at a school but National College Players Association founder, Ragomi Huma, says that the full scholarship given to student athletes is not enough, and students on average end up with $3,000 in debt after every year ("Scholarship Shortfall Study"). So what can we do to fix this discrepancy? Flint Harris, A former academic adviser at two SEC schools who has helped many student athletes make ends meet, says the NCAA doesn't have to do anything. It's the players who are not utilizing all of the options available. Many football players and basketball players in Division one generally come from underprivileged background and will be able for up to $5,500 in Pell Grants. There is also a NCAA funded student-athlete opportunity fund that gives universities around $200,000 for all student athlete needs that is distributed by a senior staff member in the athletic department that finds the expense reasonable (Harris). Even with that said the NCAA does recognize that the full-scholarship package is not covering many school related expenses for athletes. This was the topic of last weeks NCAA retreat where 50 Division I chancellors and presidents met with NCAA President Mark Emmert. They are trying to come up with a plan that "can close the gap between the cost of going to school and the scholarship given to student-athletes" ("What is the full cost of attendance initiative being discussed"). The importance of bridging this gap is so that players can focus on school and athletics, rather then be influenced by outside parties and illegal payments just to make ends meet. No fan, including myself wants to see the NCAA or their favorite schools being hit with penalties from players accepting these payments but in all honesty it must be very tempting because I personally know how hard it is to make ends meet while attending college. What matters about the differences between what Emmert and Flint said is that Flint's idea is only beneficial to underprivileged players, whereas Emmerts idea would help all football, basketball, or any other student on a full scholarship. Under Emmert's idea the NCAA could keep all the rules same and still provide players with money to make ends meet. This would lead to players being able to focus more on school and keep illegal behavior at bay.
In his article Williamson says that "appeal of college athletics has long rested on their "amateur" status (7) and paying players to play basketball or football would take away from that appeal. What about Olympic athletes then? It wasn't long ago that only amateurs could compete in the Olympics ("Amateurism"). That didn't take away from the appeal of watching someone represent his or her country in a sporting event. Could the NCAA shape a new system that follows the Olympic amateur system and not lose any fans? The main difference between amateurs under the NCAA and amateurs in the Olympics was that athletes could accept prize money and endorsements when they represented their country. NCPA Founder, Ragomi Huma agrees and is quoted as saying " Give players access to the non-professional free market by allowing them to enter commercial agreements. They would be paid for their fame just as AMATEUR Olympic athletes have been allowed to do" (NCPA). This is important because the NCAA or universities wouldn't have to provide the money. It would also provide adequate payment to the potential 3 percent of college basketball and football players that will be playing at the next level. Considering this group of players that are most often taking illegal payments, they would have no need to engage in that behavior anymore. The NCAA could then return their focus back to true student athletes and education.
Another issue that I found while researching was where is the money to pay the basketball and football players going to come from? The NCAA signed massive television deals with Turner, Fox, and CBS but in the study by Berkowitz and the NCAA, it was found most athletic programs are still loosing money. So back to the question, where is the money supposed to come from? Michael Wilbon, a highly respected ESPN commentator and one of the nations most respected sports writers, proposal is to give basketball and football players who do produce revenues for everyone involved in the sport a little bit of this money made from television deals. He says
Paying players out of individual athletic department budgets is beyond impractical...but it's another thing entirely for the students who play for revenue-producing teams be somehow compensated from the lucrative television/radio/Internet rights fees they make wholly possible. (Wilbon)
What he is saying is if the universities can't provide money to the basketball and football players, we can't end the conversation there. The money needed to pay and support the basketball and football players can come from the major deals that NCAA has signed with FOX, CBS, and turner. The reason is without these two sports universities would have to cut less possible sports and the student athletes are the people that make the entire entity of college football and basketball profitable for everyone involved (Meshefejian 16). As a student I don't want to see any programs cut from my school, with state and government funding already being cut to schools, we need to support the people that are steadily bringing in funding.
5. FINAL THOUGHTS
Through my research I found a lot of interesting information. Even as I near the conclusion of my paper I still have a lot of unanswered questions. The idea of paying college athletes poses many new problems that would have to be addressed. The idea of not paying college athletes still leaves me asking why shouldn't we? The main thing I want reader to remember is that college is tough and that's part of the learning experience. You can't always get what you want without making sacrifices and this stands true when it comes to the topic of whether or not to pay college football and basketball players on full-scholarships. Many athletes and people in the sports world are quick to say we need to pay the players or they shouldn't be paid but I personally think the NCAA recognizes the different problems that are prevalent in college basketball and football. I also think they are doing a good job in acting slow and focusing on education before just throwing money at players and ending up in a worst place then they are now. All tuition paying students help pay for a portion of the athletic fund that provides these full scholarships for student athletes and I want to see my school excel academically and athletically because it gives my degree and university added value. The current approach works but it does need to be reformed but any reform will not come with criticism and create other issues that will need to be addressed. This is important to me because as an avid fan of both sports, I don't want to see them fall apart or negatively impacted because of money. As long as there are future professionals basketball and football players playing along side true student-athletes the problem of compensation with be brought up every march and during then again during footballs bowl season unless something is done in the near future.
Works Cited
"2010-2011 NCAA Division I Manual." Frontline. PBS.org, n.d.
"Amateur." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster
"Behind the Blue Disk: How Do Athletic Scholarships Work?" NCAA.org.
Berkowitz, Steve. "Few Athletic Programs in Black; Most Need Money." USA Today.
"Bowl Ban Among Penalties for Southern California." NCAA.org. National Collegiate Athletic Association.
"Estimated probability of Competing in Athletics Beyond the High School Interscholastic
Level." NCAA.Org. National Collegiate Athletic Association. n.d.
Ford, William. "Even Playing Field?" Diverse: Issues in Higher Education. Vol. 28 Issue 6 (2011): 11-12.
Harris, Flint. "Football Players Receive $17,000 Annually In Cash All within NCAA Rules."
Mandel, Stewart. "TV Deals for Major Conferences."
Sports Illustrated.
Meshefejian, Krikor. "Pay to Play: Should College Athletes Be Paid?" The Journal of the Business Law Society. 23 March 2005.
"NCAA Amateurism Certification." NCAA.org. National Collegiate Athletic Association.
"NCPA Proposal: Reggie Bush, Agents and "the Amatuer Problem"." NCPA.org.
Patel, Shawn. Personal interview.
Paterno, Jay. "Pay Student-Athletes? They're Already Getting a Great Deal." NCAA.org.
National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Rosenberg, Michael. "Change is Long Overdue: College Football Players Should Be Paid."
Schefter, Adam. "Rams Give Bradford $50M Guaranteed." Espn.com. ESPN.
NCPA News Release.
"Trends in College Pricing." College Board. 19 Oct. 2004,
"What is the Full Cost of Attendance Initiative being Discussed." NCAA.Org.
"Where Does the Money Go?" NCAA.org. National Collegiate Athletic Association.
"Why Student Athletes are Not Paid to Play." NCAA.org. National Collegiate Athletic Association. n.d. Web.
Wilbon, Michael. "College Athletes Deserved to be Paid." ESPN.com. ESPN.
Wulf, Steve. "Tote that ball, life that revenue: why not pay college athletes, who put in long Hours to Fill Stadiums-and Coffers?" Time: 148.19.
