1 The NCAA Stealing Lunch Money Imagine $989 million. Nearly one billion dollars. This is the amount one of the largest corporations in the United States brought in during a single fiscal year. Another staggering fact sets this company apart more than the size of generated revenue. The more notable difference between this company and other leading companies in the country is this one does not pay their employees. The situation is very real, one in which the National Collegiate Athletic Association is showered with millions and millions of dollars from ticket sales, television contracts, and merchandising--all while refusing to compensate their employees, the student-athletes. Not only is this lack of compensation a blatant violation of common fairness, it is unlawful as well. Public opinion is on the side of the student-athletes, especially when demographics are taken into account. Leaders of the college athletics world, including Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby and Duke Basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski, even agree change is necessary. Although plenty of options are available, the answer is clear: Student athletes should receive compensation for their hard work, directly from the same corporation that makes hundreds of millions of dollars in profit off their names and from their efforts. Standard Oil, U.S. Oil, and De Beers. What do each of these companies have in common? Each was a well-recognized monopoly, a company who had complete control of the entire supply of goods or of a service in a certain area or market (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Such companies had so much power that the Supreme Court created the Sherman Antitrust Act to reduce their power and promote capitalism. Since then, the Sherman Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act (a reform to make the Sherman Act stronger) have helped protect the rights of consumers and rivaling companies against the unchecked powers of monopolies. In
2 modern days, the NCAA has emerged into and fights to protect a monopoly of its own. The organization has a stranglehold on the market of college sports, and it goes largely unchecked as it sets the terms of the relationships it and member schools have with their employees, the student-athletes. The beauty of capitalism is that it requires the best from companies, as the consumer decides what product represents the best option. Competition improves performance as well as the treatment of customers. Monopolies are not held in check by this competition but are free to dictate the terms of business. Minus any checks on its power, the NCAA represents a threat to the customer (college sport fans) and employee (student-athletes) alike. In a study done of college students by Raymond Schneider with the College Student Journal, Schneider found that overall, 54% of all respondents believed student-athletes should be paid for intercollegiate athletics participation (Schneider). Of this group, the most often advanced reasons that student-athletes should be paid were cheating would decline if studentathletes were paid (76%) and student-athletes generate large amounts of revenue and deserve payments (63%) (Schneider). These students had no issue with their peers being paid for their hard work; they simply agree that their peers' work deserves to be rewarded. As college students perceptions change, public sentiment is likely to follow. These are the rising leaders of their generation, and they want change. One real life example highlighting the need for some sort of compensation for athletes is the case of Auburn running back Peyton Barber. Barber opted to enter the NFL draft earlier than expected, not for the fame and honor of playing in the NFL, but for a reason much more selfless. When asked why he left so early he responded, My mother is homeless right now she s staying with her sister. It s her and her three kids staying in an apartment back home (ESPN). In order to provide for his family, this young man decided to turn away from his education
3 because he was not making any money that could be used to help his homeless mother. Barber made a brave decision that should not have to be made by college athletes--education or immediate money. As public opinion mounts against the NCAA, they are also faced with breaches of ethics. Angela Lumpkin, Professor in the Department of Health, Sport, and Exercise Sciences at University of Kansas, discussed this blatant disregard of ethics in an article for the Phi Kappa Phi Forum. She focuses on an overview of high profile scandals related to college sports. Colleges bombard athletes with messages to recruit them (University of Kentucky and University of Alabama), arrange for other people to take their standardized tests (University of Memphis), and reward athletes with grades they haven t earned (Creighton University and Oklahoma State University) (Lumpkin). College sports are ridden with ethical problems, and the NCAA is simply feeding the fire. While student athletes juggle school and their sports, the NCAA sits idly by, raking in money. As Lumpkin put it, The limelight and the cash prompt high-powered programs nationwide to engage in all sorts of unethical behavior. The result: a loss of honor (Lumpkin). One specific example of the disappointing actions of schools against their studentathletes is the treatment of Stanley Doughty, a former player at the University of South Carolina. After succeeding at the collegiate level, Doughty decided to forgo his senior year and enter the NFL draft to earn millions of dollars. While undergoing standard mandatory medical testing, the [Kansas City] Chiefs found that Doughty had a cervical spine injury. That meant that if he were hit in the wrong place then he would be paralyzed for life (Vanderford 833). When he tried to return to USC to earn his degree, he was spurred by his former coaches and not allowed reentry into the university (Vanderford 833). Not only was USC to blame for his
4 injuries, they didn t have the common decency to allow him reentry into a school he had attended for the previous three years. As flawed as the ethics are behind many of the NCAA s decisions, the unflattering light shone on the NCAA pales in comparison to that emanating from their legal struggles. The NCAA is no stranger to the courts. Some previous high profile cases include O Bannon v. NCAA (a lawsuit against the NCAA for using the likenesses of student athletes in their video games), the Northwestern lawsuit (football players sued for the right to form a union to protect their rights, including the right to collectively bargain), and University of Denver v. Nemeth (a football player sued his university and claimed they owed him workers compensation for football related injuries). Throughout its history, the NCAA has broken laws and tried to outsmart the system to gain power over the student-athletes to which they owe everything. Ryan Vanderford, an Associate at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP and graduate of the USC Gould School of Law, detailed some of the most glaring problems the NCAA has with how they run their organization in the eyes of the law. In the current state of college sports, student-athletes meet both the criteria to be legally considered employees under the NLRA (National Labor Relations Act). As Vanderford puts it, student athletes must meet two tests: the common law right of control test and the statutory test (Vanderford 824). The right to control test declares a relationship must exist where the employer s control over the employee includes control of both the result and means to that result (Vanderford 824). For college athletes, this is blatantly obvious. Their lives revolve around their sports, as their entire day is controlled by the colleges for which they literally "go to work" in their quests to win more games and bring in more money. The second test, the statutory test, requires that employees have an economic relationship with their employer. It s obvious that student-athletes generate amazing
5 amounts of revenue for their schools, participating in tournaments and bowl games that can reward the winners millions of dollars for the member schools of its conference (Vanderford 824). Under these criteria, it is obvious student athletes are employees in the eye of the law. A common argument against the idea to compensate student-athletes for their skills is that it would take away from the amateurism of college sports. When handing down their decision on the O Bannon v. NCAA case, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California stated, To preserve the character and quality of the product, athletes must not be paid. Amateurism is what separates college sports from the professional leagues, and this fine line is what many people, including the NCAA, are striving to protect. In response to these concerns, Vanderford raises an important point to consider. He says, Amateurism existed in major college athletics at one point, and still exists today in many small Division II and III schools across the country. Amateurism, encompassed in those small schools, is an ideal worth protecting. However, amateurism does not exist in major college football or men s basketball (Vanderford 838). This is very true, as teams that win in national tournaments are showered with money and fame for both themselves and their conferences. According to a Forbes study, teams that make the Final Four in the NCAA Basketball Tournament will have earned $9.5 million for their successes. Amateurism is a romantic ideal, but $9.5 million for a couple of victories does not demonstrate amateurism. It represents big business. Another counter argument to paying college athletes is that the scholarships they are awarded are payment enough for their services. On the NCAA website, they brag about providing more than $2.7 billion in athletics scholarships annually to more than 150,000 student-athletes (NCAA). If you do the math, that s eighteen thousand dollars per studentathlete. That s a pretty impressive number until you compare it to how much these players are
6 actually worth. When calculated by NerdWallet Inc., it was found that the average value of a player at a top 25 ranked school is $487,617 (Sreekar). In 2015, Louisville s men s basketball team generated over $40 million in total revenue That amount is equivalent to the four-year cost for 535 students to attend the university (Sreekar). A discrepancy exists between the worth of the student-athlete and how much their colleges and the NCAA are currently willing to cough up for them. The difference between the worth of a player and how much they are actually compensated is not the only problem with the current scholarship system. College coaches are starting to see more and more money for their services in teaching the players the game. Nick Saban, coach of the University of Alabama Crimson Tide football team, will earn more than $7 million this coming year (USA Today). And he won t ever play a second for the team. The players who are actually going on the field and sacrificing their time and their bodies for the game will not see a fraction of that money. Where is the justice in that? Not only does the injustice occur in terms of not giving athletes what they deserve, the NCAA also goes a step further. In college sports video games, they use the likenesses of players and profit off them. This was what the O Bannon case was all about, and he had good reason to be angry. NFL players must be compensated when NFL-themed video games use their likenesses, but college players do not see a dime of what the NCAA makes off their likenesses. Bob Bowlsby, commissioner of the Big 12 Conference (one of the largest athletic conferences in the US), was quoted by the New York Times as saying, I could get to the point of serious consideration of some of the trust-fund models out there some repository of money available for transition into life after college (Wolverton). Although he does not agree with the pay-for-play system, even a leader of the organization in place, taking advantage of the student-
7 athletes, agrees that something must be done (Wolverton). Mike Krzyzewksi, the national champion coach of the Duke Blue Devils, also agreed that something needs to change. Any definition of amateurism needs to take into account that it is amateurism within the realm of higher education It could include something more than tuition, fees, room and board, and books---and probably should (Wolverton). Leaders, coaches, and the public agree--it s time for change in college athletics. As the discrepancy between what the NCAA does do and what it should do grows, options for solutions to these problems have appeared in many different outlets. In an article in the New York Times, Ben Strauss wrote about one possible solution. He quoted Rob Morgan, a Clemson business school graduate, who said, The answer to the riddle of putting money in the hands of amateur student-athletes, who according to the NCAA cannot be paid, is crowdfunding (Strauss). Morgan created a website, called Ubooster, that was created with the goal of soliciting payments for high school recruits from fans, and delivering the money to the athletes after their college careers end (Strauss). This solution doesn t answer the immediate problem, however. Yes, while it helps pay the athletes and reward them for their services after they are done with their college career. It does not hold the NCAA accountable for compensating the student athletes, however, and the profiteers are the ones who need to pay up. The NCAA might argue that it is paying its due, as it is required to allow student athletes to receive up to $550 in gifts for their services as a result of the O Bannon case. The most powerful way of paying that is through bowl gifts, prizes given out to players at the end of the year as a result of being invited to play in a bowl game. Some of the gifts this previous bowl season included $350 Best Buy gift cards, watches, backpacks, and video games. Players went crazy for their little taste of what their hard work and labor had earned, but a token is not good
8 enough. $550 compared to hundreds of millions of dollars their schools make off their skills is hardly fair. In 2008, the Alabama Crimson Tide Football Department made $123,769,841 (ESPN). $550 per student-athlete is a drop in the ocean of $123,769,841. One of the most reasonable and logical solutions to the problem of paying athletes for their play is laid out in Vanderford s solution. He suggests mirroring the free market system adopted in the professional leagues, where players are offered contracts to play at the colleges that want them (Vanderford 836). To protect the smaller schools the system would include a salary cap for every team (Vanderford 836). To protect the players this system would also include a minimum salary for every athlete (Vanderford 836). This system would be immensely beneficial to the players, giving them actual monetary compensation for their skills and services. It also protects the parity in college athletics when the salary cap is set up. While no solution is perfect, Vanderford s solution is one that covers many, if not all, of the bases when trying to ensure college sports and still competitive, but actually fair to the people that participate in them. The NCAA is taking advantage of the people who play for them. It is plain and simple. From the story of Auburn running back Peyton Barber to the unfair treatment of Stanley Doughty, the crimes must stop. The NCAA is a bully, stealing the lunch money from its studentathletes. It is a monopoly that is not held in check by the competition that capitalism so severely needs. Public opinion is on the side of the athlete, especially the ones who come from less privileged households. The NCAA is not only breaking a moral code, they are breaking the law and have seen their fair share of court time for it. The amount of money made off of college sports does not correspond to the amount its student athletes are given, and even the coaches are raking in the millions while athletes go crazy for $550 worth of merchandise. While the courts
9 have helped get the ball rolling with their ruling in the O Bannon case, more must be done to help protect the student-athletes. Whether it is using Ubooster to pay the athletes yourself, or restructuring the college sports layout to a free market system, more steps need to be taken. The American public cannot sit idly by, watching the bully on the playground take advantage of the kids who can t defend themselves against him.
10 Works Cited "College Athletics Revenues and Expenses - 2008." ESPN. Oct. 2009. Web. 20 Mar. 2016. "Draft Hopeful Peyton Barber Motivated by 'homeless' Mom." ESPN. 25 Feb. 2016. Web. 20 Mar. 2016. Lumpkin, Angela. "Ethical Breaches Disgrace College Football And Basketball." Phi Kappa Phi Forum 94.2 (2014): 29.Business Source Premier. Web. 4 Mar. 2016. Mondello, Michael, et al. "Public Perceptions On Paying Student Athletes." Sport In Society 16.1 (2013): 106-119.SPORTDiscus. Web. 4 Mar. 2016. "Monopoly." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2016. "NCAA Salaries - NCAAF Coaches." USA Today. 8 Oct. 2015. Web. 22 Mar. 2016. Schneider, Raymond G. "College Students' Perceptions On The Payment Of Intercollegiate Student-Athletes." College Student Journal 35.2 (2001): 232. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 Mar. 2016. "Scholarships." NCAA. Jan. 2016. Web. 20 Mar. 2016. Smith, Chris. "March Madness: A Trip To The Final Four Is Worth $9.5 Million." Forbes. 14 Mar. 2012. Web. 20 Mar. 2016. Jasthi, Sreekar. "March Madness? Top NCAA Players Worth $488,000." NerdWallet. 3 Mar. 2015. Web. 20 Mar. 2016. Strauss, Ben. "If Colleges Can t Pay Athletes, Maybe Fans Can, Group Says. (Cover story)." New York Times 12 Dec. 2015: A1+. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 Mar. 2016.
11 Vanderford, Ryan. "Pay-For-Play: An Age-Old Struggle For Appropriate Reform In A Changing Landscape Between Employer And Employee." Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 24.3 (2015): 805-838.Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 Mar. 2016. Wolverton, Brad. "Big 12 Commissioner Backs New Benefits Short Of Payments For Athletes." Chronicle Of Higher Education 60.7 (2013): A18. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 Mar. 2016.