College athletics are a national sensation. Fans will spend countless dollars on travel, tickets, and apparel to support their favorite schools. They cheer on players, and in some cases donate large amounts of money to show support. College athletics is a multi-billion dollar enterprise, and has large profit gains each year. These profits are brought in by lucrative contracts with television networks, sponsors, and revenue from events. The NCAA, conference, schools, and even school employees get a piece of the profits. That sounds like everyone, right? Unfortunately, it is not. The very people who are mostly responsible for college sporting events are left out of the profit share. The athletes themselves do not receive anything other than a "free education" for all of their hard work, dedication, and value to their schools. Not to say there is no value to the free education these students receive, but it is an extremely small piece to receive when it appears everyone around them is receiving so much more for what they accomplish. College athletes need and deserve more financial help because their sports help bring in money for their schools and the NCAA, make having a job unrealistic, and many athletes come from struggling families.
College athletes need and deserve more financial help because their sports help bring in money for their schools and the NCAA. The schools benefit greatly from the performance of their teams. Schools sell thousands of tickets to events, have apparel contracts with all the top companies, and coaches make hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. The players do not receive any money from their efforts. In fact, it is a violation and can make them ineligible to seek or receive any benefits. Many schools would report that they do not make money from their sports, but it is speculated that some schools move funds in order to reduce profit reports. said Michael Leeds, a professor of economics at Temple University said, "Schools quite often move around or spend money to basically get rid of excess revenue -- what would be called profit in a profit-making corporation,"(Strachan). So, when the issue of requiring schools to pay players comes up, many schools state there is no way they could afford to do it. However, in an article published in the USA Today an economist named Allen Sanderson argues this, "Some colleges will keep playing because they're making money," Sanderson says. "Others are going to keep playing because they're wasting money but they have ways to cover it, and sometimes we're willing to lose money because we enjoy things." ( Frost). Thus it is obvious that a school could do this even if its profits are as little as reported. Campus and student life at campuses across the country would suffer if athletics were cut only to avoid paying players. Former UCLA and NBA great Kareem Abdul-Jabbar said this when asked about his college career: "Despite the hours I put in every day, practicing, learning plays, and traveling around the country to play games, and despite the millions of dollars our team generated for UCLA-both in cash and in recruiting students to attend the university-I was always too broke to do much but study, practice, and play" (Eromosele). Is it not a shame that athletes like him represent their schools, make them money, and make them more appealing to others, but receive no financial compensation to reflect it outside of their scholarship?
However, the real breadwinner of college athletics is the NCAA itself. The NCAA makes a fortune on the hard work of thousands of athletes every year, and the NCAA's own rules prevent the athletes from making anything to preserve them as amateur athletes. Does it not strike anyone else as odd that the organization profiting from college athletes has rules in place to make sure the athletes themselves cannot? It is not right, and college athletes deserve better for their hard work. Some people say they can't afford to pay, but the NCAA is also known for spending unnecessarily and moving money to maintain it's non-profit status. For example, Maxwell Strachan reports that ,"The NCAA had a surplus of only $80 million on $989 million in revenue for its last fiscal year" (Strachan). The key word I see is "only". It is interesting to see that much money referred to in such a way. A small fraction of that money would go a long way in helping the athletes that create the revenue in the first place. The possibilities for the NCAA to generate revenue off of college athletes seem endless, but the athletes still receive no financial help. For example, most people are aware of the new college football bowl and playoff system which just brought in extremely high ratings in its first year. This seems like a good thing for the athletes. In some ways it definitely is good for the athletes, but what is failed to be reported is the revenue stream for the NCAA it has created. Alexander LeCasse reports, "This was on top of a highly lucrative college football season, the first year of a 12-year deal in which ESPN will pay over $450 million annually for the television rights to broadcast the college football playoff and major bowls that formerly made up the Bowl Championship Series or BCS, according to USA Today." (LaCasse). Once again, the NCAA is profiting off of the athletes while prohibiting the athletes do the same.
Athletes also deserve income because their sports limit their work opportunities significantly. College athletes are always busy so having a job is unrealistic. They all dream of being at the next level, and to fulfill that dream the student-athlete must work endlessly to perfect their craft. Also, on top of that student-athletes must maintain good grades or their dream goes down the drain. When doing field research on the time it takes to be a student-athlete I interviewed Alivin Hutchinson, a collegiate athlete. I asked him to describe his basic day. He said, "I have class in the morning. I go eat whatever I have for lunch, and then I get ready for practice. After practice, I eat dinner and try to get my homework done." (Hutchinson). Where is the time for a job? Would you hire someone who can seemingly only work overnight? When is the athlete to sleep? So, what can an athlete do for money if the NCAA will not allow them to be paid and they do not have time for a job? As it has been previously stated, countless hours are spent by student-athletes in pursuit of becoming the best they can be at their sport. They live the expression of blood, sweat, and tears. Any employee who worked as hard as most student-athletes would be an ideal person to hire, and would most likely reap the benefits of what they have worked so hard for to get. Athletes do not. They bring in all types of money to the NCAA, school, and others all to receive no financial restitution themselves. Dennis Dodd of CBS Sports agrees that, "The NCAA allows athletes to work but the time demands of their sports make that virtually impossible, even in their offseason." (Dodd). It is time that something is done to help those who allow for so many jobs to be had from the market their sport creates, but have virtually no time for a job of their own.
The term student-athlete is used almost exclusively to describe college athletes; however, student does not typically come before athlete in reality. The amount of time a student-athlete has to spend on athletics drastically outweighs the time for academics. In fact, "According to an NCAA poll, college athletes are spending more than 40 hours a week in uniform in some cases" (LaCasse). That is what most people consider a full time job's work week. Could you imagine having so much school work to do on top of your full time job? Most would want a raise if that was required from them, but athletes must do all this just to play the game they love. This grind took its toll on the football players at prestigious Northwestern University. At a school where academics have very high demands the student-athletes felt that their football requirements were hindering their ability to meet such high standards. The football players decided to form a union and what is interesting is that: "Last year in March, the National Labor Relations Board decided Northwestern's football players were primarily athletes, rather than students," says Allen Sanderson, senior lecturer in economics at the University of Chicago and co-author of the article" (Frost). From this, one could conclude that a free education is not all it seems to be if in reality the student-athlete is really athlete first and student second. Thus, more should be done to compensate these athletes financially.
College athletes also often come from families that struggle financially. It has been widely reported how college athletes are now verbalizing the struggles they face. Many athletes have expressed how they often go to bed hungry, because they sometimes can't afford food. They sometimes can't ask their family for money, because they don't have the money to give either. It is a shame to think that people fuel the market to put foods on so many plates can't put any on their own. Dennis Dodd agrees that, "If you're making the school money they should make sure you have everything" (Dodd). Everything should include food and drinks. Schools will argue that the athlete should take advantage of the resources at the facilities, but athletes must go home at some time. They should not have to worry about what they will eat or drink when they get home, because the school would lose a little money from it. It is also argued that students should eat on campus with their meal plans, but not all student-athletes play at schools that can offer everyone a meal plan. During my interview with Alivin Hutchinson he informed me: "I have to provide my own food." (Hutchinson). So, could a school not at least do it's best to assure that the student-athletes that work so hard for them are well fed when they get home after a long day? It is not enough to say they are getting an education for free when they cannot nurture themselves to grow mentally and physically.
All this fails to mention that many Americans live at or below the poverty line, and struggle to make ends meet. What would cause one to think that student-athletes do not come from these families? Aja Frost said it best when he said, "Look at March Madness. Most of the guys are black, they're coming from inner-city neighborhoods, and - in many cases - broken families with modest incomes," he says. "CBS is going to pay the NCAA $800 million this year to broadcast the tournament, and the guys who are responsible for playing are getting ripped off. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves" (Frost). He is right. We should be ashamed, but as long as people are profiting from it they seem to choose to ignore it. Some students do not have the luxury of asking for help, because there is no one to give it. In fact, many students find a way to help out their families instead. Generations of athletes have found a way to help out loved ones back home. Dennis Dodd reports, "Players have long sent money home to assist their families" (Dodd). Such a selfless act, but the ones who suffer are the student-athletes. It seems there is never enough money to go around for them, but is spent in excess by schools and the NCAA.
College athletics is a huge market. It draws in millions of dollars in advertisements and sponsors. It provides entertainment to millions, employment to thousands, and millions of dollars in revenue. However, it fails to financially compensate the athletes that make it all possible. That is like having a car that you don't check the oil or put gas in. It is an unfair precedent that is created by the NCAA allowing others to profit from the athletes, but prohibiting the athletes earn a cent. Paying student-athletes is not only the fair thing to do; it is the right thing to do. College athletes need and deserve more financial help because their sports help bring in money for their schools and the NCAA, make having a job unrealistic, and many athletes come from struggling families.
Annotated Bibliography
Dodd, Dennis. "Players about to Get Paid as Money Changes Game in College Athletics." CBSSports.com. 27 Feb. 2015. Web. 30 July 2015.
Eromosele, Diana. "Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: College Athletes Should Be Paid ." 13 Nov. 2014. Web. 30 July 2015.
Frost, Aja. "Economists Argue It's 'unfair' That College Athletes Aren't Paid." USA TODAY College. 18 Feb. 2015. Web. 30 July 2015
Hutchinson, Alivin. Personal interview. 3 August 2015.
Knapp, Terry J., Charles Rasmussen, and Roger K. Barnhart. "What college students say about intercollegiate athletics: A survey of attitudes and beliefs." College Student Journal 35.1 (2001): 96.
LaCasse, Alexander. "March Madness: Is John Oliver Right? Should NCAA Pay College Athletes? ." The Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor, 16 Mar. 2015. Web. 30 July 2015.
Strachan, Maxwell. "NCAA Schools Can Absolutely Afford To Pay College Athletes, Economists Say." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 27 Mar. 2015. Web. 30 July 2015.
"$60 Million Settlement Approved in N.C.A.A. Video Game Lawsuit." The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 July 2015. Web. 30 July 2015.
College athletes need and deserve more financial help because their sports help bring in money for their schools and the NCAA. The schools benefit greatly from the performance of their teams. Schools sell thousands of tickets to events, have apparel contracts with all the top companies, and coaches make hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. The players do not receive any money from their efforts. In fact, it is a violation and can make them ineligible to seek or receive any benefits. Many schools would report that they do not make money from their sports, but it is speculated that some schools move funds in order to reduce profit reports. said Michael Leeds, a professor of economics at Temple University said, "Schools quite often move around or spend money to basically get rid of excess revenue -- what would be called profit in a profit-making corporation,"(Strachan). So, when the issue of requiring schools to pay players comes up, many schools state there is no way they could afford to do it. However, in an article published in the USA Today an economist named Allen Sanderson argues this, "Some colleges will keep playing because they're making money," Sanderson says. "Others are going to keep playing because they're wasting money but they have ways to cover it, and sometimes we're willing to lose money because we enjoy things." ( Frost). Thus it is obvious that a school could do this even if its profits are as little as reported. Campus and student life at campuses across the country would suffer if athletics were cut only to avoid paying players. Former UCLA and NBA great Kareem Abdul-Jabbar said this when asked about his college career: "Despite the hours I put in every day, practicing, learning plays, and traveling around the country to play games, and despite the millions of dollars our team generated for UCLA-both in cash and in recruiting students to attend the university-I was always too broke to do much but study, practice, and play" (Eromosele). Is it not a shame that athletes like him represent their schools, make them money, and make them more appealing to others, but receive no financial compensation to reflect it outside of their scholarship?
However, the real breadwinner of college athletics is the NCAA itself. The NCAA makes a fortune on the hard work of thousands of athletes every year, and the NCAA's own rules prevent the athletes from making anything to preserve them as amateur athletes. Does it not strike anyone else as odd that the organization profiting from college athletes has rules in place to make sure the athletes themselves cannot? It is not right, and college athletes deserve better for their hard work. Some people say they can't afford to pay, but the NCAA is also known for spending unnecessarily and moving money to maintain it's non-profit status. For example, Maxwell Strachan reports that ,"The NCAA had a surplus of only $80 million on $989 million in revenue for its last fiscal year" (Strachan). The key word I see is "only". It is interesting to see that much money referred to in such a way. A small fraction of that money would go a long way in helping the athletes that create the revenue in the first place. The possibilities for the NCAA to generate revenue off of college athletes seem endless, but the athletes still receive no financial help. For example, most people are aware of the new college football bowl and playoff system which just brought in extremely high ratings in its first year. This seems like a good thing for the athletes. In some ways it definitely is good for the athletes, but what is failed to be reported is the revenue stream for the NCAA it has created. Alexander LeCasse reports, "This was on top of a highly lucrative college football season, the first year of a 12-year deal in which ESPN will pay over $450 million annually for the television rights to broadcast the college football playoff and major bowls that formerly made up the Bowl Championship Series or BCS, according to USA Today." (LaCasse). Once again, the NCAA is profiting off of the athletes while prohibiting the athletes do the same.
Athletes also deserve income because their sports limit their work opportunities significantly. College athletes are always busy so having a job is unrealistic. They all dream of being at the next level, and to fulfill that dream the student-athlete must work endlessly to perfect their craft. Also, on top of that student-athletes must maintain good grades or their dream goes down the drain. When doing field research on the time it takes to be a student-athlete I interviewed Alivin Hutchinson, a collegiate athlete. I asked him to describe his basic day. He said, "I have class in the morning. I go eat whatever I have for lunch, and then I get ready for practice. After practice, I eat dinner and try to get my homework done." (Hutchinson). Where is the time for a job? Would you hire someone who can seemingly only work overnight? When is the athlete to sleep? So, what can an athlete do for money if the NCAA will not allow them to be paid and they do not have time for a job? As it has been previously stated, countless hours are spent by student-athletes in pursuit of becoming the best they can be at their sport. They live the expression of blood, sweat, and tears. Any employee who worked as hard as most student-athletes would be an ideal person to hire, and would most likely reap the benefits of what they have worked so hard for to get. Athletes do not. They bring in all types of money to the NCAA, school, and others all to receive no financial restitution themselves. Dennis Dodd of CBS Sports agrees that, "The NCAA allows athletes to work but the time demands of their sports make that virtually impossible, even in their offseason." (Dodd). It is time that something is done to help those who allow for so many jobs to be had from the market their sport creates, but have virtually no time for a job of their own.
The term student-athlete is used almost exclusively to describe college athletes; however, student does not typically come before athlete in reality. The amount of time a student-athlete has to spend on athletics drastically outweighs the time for academics. In fact, "According to an NCAA poll, college athletes are spending more than 40 hours a week in uniform in some cases" (LaCasse). That is what most people consider a full time job's work week. Could you imagine having so much school work to do on top of your full time job? Most would want a raise if that was required from them, but athletes must do all this just to play the game they love. This grind took its toll on the football players at prestigious Northwestern University. At a school where academics have very high demands the student-athletes felt that their football requirements were hindering their ability to meet such high standards. The football players decided to form a union and what is interesting is that: "Last year in March, the National Labor Relations Board decided Northwestern's football players were primarily athletes, rather than students," says Allen Sanderson, senior lecturer in economics at the University of Chicago and co-author of the article" (Frost). From this, one could conclude that a free education is not all it seems to be if in reality the student-athlete is really athlete first and student second. Thus, more should be done to compensate these athletes financially.
College athletes also often come from families that struggle financially. It has been widely reported how college athletes are now verbalizing the struggles they face. Many athletes have expressed how they often go to bed hungry, because they sometimes can't afford food. They sometimes can't ask their family for money, because they don't have the money to give either. It is a shame to think that people fuel the market to put foods on so many plates can't put any on their own. Dennis Dodd agrees that, "If you're making the school money they should make sure you have everything" (Dodd). Everything should include food and drinks. Schools will argue that the athlete should take advantage of the resources at the facilities, but athletes must go home at some time. They should not have to worry about what they will eat or drink when they get home, because the school would lose a little money from it. It is also argued that students should eat on campus with their meal plans, but not all student-athletes play at schools that can offer everyone a meal plan. During my interview with Alivin Hutchinson he informed me: "I have to provide my own food." (Hutchinson). So, could a school not at least do it's best to assure that the student-athletes that work so hard for them are well fed when they get home after a long day? It is not enough to say they are getting an education for free when they cannot nurture themselves to grow mentally and physically.
All this fails to mention that many Americans live at or below the poverty line, and struggle to make ends meet. What would cause one to think that student-athletes do not come from these families? Aja Frost said it best when he said, "Look at March Madness. Most of the guys are black, they're coming from inner-city neighborhoods, and - in many cases - broken families with modest incomes," he says. "CBS is going to pay the NCAA $800 million this year to broadcast the tournament, and the guys who are responsible for playing are getting ripped off. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves" (Frost). He is right. We should be ashamed, but as long as people are profiting from it they seem to choose to ignore it. Some students do not have the luxury of asking for help, because there is no one to give it. In fact, many students find a way to help out their families instead. Generations of athletes have found a way to help out loved ones back home. Dennis Dodd reports, "Players have long sent money home to assist their families" (Dodd). Such a selfless act, but the ones who suffer are the student-athletes. It seems there is never enough money to go around for them, but is spent in excess by schools and the NCAA.
College athletics is a huge market. It draws in millions of dollars in advertisements and sponsors. It provides entertainment to millions, employment to thousands, and millions of dollars in revenue. However, it fails to financially compensate the athletes that make it all possible. That is like having a car that you don't check the oil or put gas in. It is an unfair precedent that is created by the NCAA allowing others to profit from the athletes, but prohibiting the athletes earn a cent. Paying student-athletes is not only the fair thing to do; it is the right thing to do. College athletes need and deserve more financial help because their sports help bring in money for their schools and the NCAA, make having a job unrealistic, and many athletes come from struggling families.
Annotated Bibliography
Dodd, Dennis. "Players about to Get Paid as Money Changes Game in College Athletics." CBSSports.com. 27 Feb. 2015. Web. 30 July 2015.
Eromosele, Diana. "Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: College Athletes Should Be Paid ." 13 Nov. 2014. Web. 30 July 2015.
Frost, Aja. "Economists Argue It's 'unfair' That College Athletes Aren't Paid." USA TODAY College. 18 Feb. 2015. Web. 30 July 2015
Hutchinson, Alivin. Personal interview. 3 August 2015.
Knapp, Terry J., Charles Rasmussen, and Roger K. Barnhart. "What college students say about intercollegiate athletics: A survey of attitudes and beliefs." College Student Journal 35.1 (2001): 96.
LaCasse, Alexander. "March Madness: Is John Oliver Right? Should NCAA Pay College Athletes? ." The Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor, 16 Mar. 2015. Web. 30 July 2015.
Strachan, Maxwell. "NCAA Schools Can Absolutely Afford To Pay College Athletes, Economists Say." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 27 Mar. 2015. Web. 30 July 2015.
"$60 Million Settlement Approved in N.C.A.A. Video Game Lawsuit." The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 July 2015. Web. 30 July 2015.
