Introduction
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has been in the spotlight severally concerning paying college athletes. The debate is whether the compensation college athletes receive is fair considering how much money schools make through tickets, advertising, merchandising et cetera while some athletes only receive free tuition. Many have deemed the caps they put that bar schools from going beyond a specific limit in compensating athletes unlawful. From the NCAA to colleges, coaches, and even the athlete themselves, many stakeholders are involved. Each side of the debate is either fighting to get a better share of the pie or keep what they already have.
Many college athletes struggle to support themselves as they can not even take another job on the athlete schedules they have (Thacker, 2017). Additionally, since the NCAA puts an emphasis on academic performance, the students do not get time for themselves while juggling between class and practice (Terp, 2019). Some of the athletes have limited health insurance and are not even insured against sports injuries. The provision of insurance against injuries would help athletes recover and go back to playing. Maybe the NCAA should borrow a leaf or two from the proposed structure of the newly announced Overtime Elite and put provisions like education on financial literacy, and fair payment and allow them to keep revenue from their names, images, and likenesses. College athletes should be paid as they are the key players that keep the whole system running; their needs should be met first.
The NCAA’s Side of the Story
The NCAA’s big argument has been that paying college athletes will reduce the fans’ interests as they will only be seen as a minor league and not students representing their schools. In a 2019 lawsuit, Judge Claudia Wilkens ruled that NCAA can not limit benefits to the athletes tethered to education (Murphy, 2021). The NCAA seems to want a big line drawn so as to separate the amateurs and professionals. Though, one would wonder whose interests they have in mind. NCAA challenges the ruling, and the case has been moved to the supreme court. They hope to get the verdict before several of the states have amended the NIL legislation, which would give a national state law, and if that does not happen, they will file lawsuits in the different states.
What the New Laws Mean for Athletes
States like New Mexico and Oklahoma have already signed the NIL legislation, which would come into implementation around July. It is quite essential to understand what this means for athletes. Students may start choosing to apply to colleges in states that have the law if they want to play. Owing to the fact that students already look forward to going to college in a different state, deciding to go to a state with much more favorable laws would be a no-brainer. The new regulations also mean that student-athletes can afford health cover; hence an injury will not necessarily mean an end to their career. The majority of the athletes in basketball are black people from low-income families (Wiggins et al., 2003). Consequently, the law will help student-athletes pay more attention to the game and classes without thinking of other ways to earn money and support their families. On the other hand, the law may create a bias where the athlete’s worth and success are determined by how much they are making.
Pros and Cons of Paying College Athletes
Essentially, there are pros and cons to deciding that athletes should be paid. The payment of college athletes would put focus on athletics over academics. The system put in place for college athletics is such that they maintain a specific grade and complete a set number of courses while performing well in the field. If students are compensated much, they may end up putting more effort into athletics and trying to be famous online so that they sell more. As some sports, like football and basketball, earn more revenue for the school than others, more resources may be allocated to them, leaving the others with fewer resources (Katz et al., n.d.). Compensating students has its advantages too. It is a motivation for student-athletes. The same way computer science students are compensated for innovation should be the same way good athletic performance is compensated. Benefits like insurance from injuries that last beyond college careers help students not to suffer economically for an injury they got in the line of duty benefitting the school.
Sources from USA Today show a breakdown of the revenue from the 2018-2019 financial year. Michigan earned a total revenue of $197,820,410 which is a rise from the previous years while reporting expenses worth $190,952,175. The revenue has been increasing steadily, showing that the school is making a profit of around seven million dollars. In the new proposal, part of the profit goes back to benefit the athletes. This also helps reduce the probability of schools running their sports teams like businesses.
The role of Title IX
Title IX came to help as it prohibits sexual discrimination in schools. It gives the schools a responsibility to ensure that they are proactive concerning ensuring they have a campus free from sexual discrimination. It also ensures the safety of a person filing a complaint, and the school is expected to provide the choice of no-contact directives. A lot of discrimination cases had popped up, and Title IX played a significant role in enforcing the regulation. Athletes would find it hard to report their managers and coaches for any misconduct.
While Title IX was meant to prevent the discrimination of persons based on sex. It has had some areas where it has created bias (Sharrow, 2017). It still shows heterosexist inequities; hence non-binary athletes might feel left out. The general perceptions of Title IX seldom question the policy’s more complex legacies, such as the promotion of sex-conscious approaches to athletic competition by sex-segregated teams, or the codification of embodied sex difference in policy design. There is a lot of emphasis on female athletes. There is also a lot of grey area left in terms of the inclusion of non-binary athletes, as it seems. Sports are still left to the choices of men’s and women’s teams, and there is a lot of gatekeeping with regard to who can decide they are male or female. All in all, we would like to appreciate the influence Title IX has had on the creation of more women’s teams where there weren’t any.
Conclusion
As stated earlier, all stakeholders have solid and valid points on the pay athletes debate. School admissions in states without the NIL Legislation have a lot to lose when it comes to applications by student-athletes. The NCAA could lose the rights and controls it has on enforcing revenue caps for students. Having students earn also reduces profits for the sports teams that are run like businesses. This proposal centers on the athlete as they are at the center of why the game is played in the first place. The athletes should have better working conditions that allow them to be students still and not stretch them too thin. It is only suitable that they feel they should earn if they spend eighty percent of their time on the field. Students should also get long-term scholarships, not just yearly ones. There should also be provided for other scholarships, for example, for interning and studying abroad.
In terms of earnings from their names, images, and likenesses, they should get a percentage that could be put in an escrow account that is only accessible when and if the athlete graduates. This will encourage athletes to continue pursuing their education and not let go of their responsibilities in the classroom. They should get money management classes from the school too. They should also be able to earn from TV shows when they make appearances. Of course, we do not want to run the amateur teams like professionals as even the rules of play are different. Hence, the benefits emphasis should center around making their playing and learning environment more conducive. A student-athlete alumni program would also be ideal if implemented in most schools. It would allow the continuing students to be mentored, and alumni donations could help the schools maintain students’ sports facilities.
References
Gilleran. M, Katz, R, & Vaughn. I (n.d.). Should College Athletes Be Paid?. Web.
Murphy, D. (2021). What will a Supreme Court hearing reveal about the NCAA’s future?. ESPN.com. Web.
Sharrow, E. A. (2017). “Female athlete” politic: Title IX and the naturalization of sex difference in public policy. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 5(1), 46-66. Web.
Terp, G. (2019). Paying college athletes. Weigl Publishers.
Thacker, D. (2017). Amateurism vs. capitalism: A practical approach to paying college athletes. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 16, 183.
Wiggins, D. K., & Miller, P. B. (2003). The unlevel playing field: A documentary history of the African American experience in sport (Vol. 114). University of Illinois Press.