NCAA Advertisement Analysis

With college basketball and football originating in the 1800’s, the game has had much time to adapt. Over the years, the sports have become more and more popular, gaining a bigger fan base, which has resulted in substantial profits from the sale of merchandise representing the teams and players. There is one thing that has not changed; all of the athletes are still not being paid. The National Collegiate Athletic Association, or NCAA, is an organization that regulates most aspects of

The NCAA has been around and evolved since the beginning of college sports. This organization is a non-profitable organization, but ironically makes more than millions of profit per year. Branch states “that money comes from a combination of ticket sales, concession sales, merchandise, licensing fees, and other sources—but the great bulk of it comes from television contract”(pg. 228). Meanwhile, the student-athletes do not receive any of this money. This is the start of an unsubstantial business between universities built around amateurism.

NCAA, short for National Collegiate Athletic Association, is a “non-profit” organization which over watch all the athletic related activities on college level. In the early 20th century, President Roosevelt created NCAA because he wanted to insured college athletes from injuries and even deaths. Despite the original purpose of the NCAA is not about money, it has become one of the most lucrative companies in the USA. According to Taylor Branch, “big-time college sports are fully commercialized. Billions of dollars flow through them each year. The NCAA makes money, and enables universities and corporations to make money, from the unpaid labor of young athletes” (Branch). Besides the tremendous fortune these college athletes made for the NCAA, it is also a vital source for university entertainment, enrollment, and money. Although these athletes generate great fortune and put up great shows for society, they do not receive proper pay back. To balance the current unfair compensation system to the athletes, in addition to free tuition, college athletes should be treated as workers in a business market system and paid depending on their own performance.

In the United States, college athletics are growing larger by the minute. College athletics contribute not only to the recognition of colleges and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), it also contributes to the income of colleges and the NCAA. Without student athletes, these colleges and the NCAA would not reap the benefits of college athletics, such as: increased awareness of colleges, higher application rates, and of course the revenue brought in from game and event tickets, apparel, and contracts for licensing and television rights. Since the student athletes, who devote a great deal of time to their sport, are the cog in the machine that is the NCAA and college athletics, they deserve the fair and rightful compensation that they certainly do not currently receive. Here is exactly why student athletes in the NCAA should be compensated for what they do for their colleges, on and off the field of play.

His statistics show the outlandish amount of money that is generated by big-time college sports, often disputed by the NCAA. Not having enough money to pay athletes what they deserve has been one of the biggest arguments from universities and colleges for many years. However, Eitzen’s article and the statics he provides proves that these big-time sports programs generate more than enough to compensate their athletes more than what they receive from athletic scholarships. One statistic he provides states that “The NCAA has signed a 6.2 trillion dollar, 11 year deal giving CBS [Columbia Broadcasting System] the right to televise its men’s basketball championship. (That’s 5.45 million dollars a year, up from 2.16 million with the arrangement that ended in 2002)” (Eitzen 3). This statistic does not include the money the NCAA generates from advertising and ticket sales from the tournament. Athletes see none of this money. According to Eitzen, the athletes and their performance are the reason all this money is being made, yet they are not rewarded for their efforts. Eitzen states that these athletes are being served another injustice by witnessing their coaches benefit from all their hard work. He writes about a set of unfair regulations the NCAA has created in order to keep big-time college sports “amateur”. The regulations state, “They may receive only educational benefits (i.e., room, board, tuition, fees, and books); cannot sign with an agent and retain eligibility;

(Solomon 1) In the NCAA there are many laws that prevent the athletes from doing certain things. These laws are called the “Laws of Amateurism”. In general, amateurism requirements do not allow salary for participating in athletics, or prize money above actual or necessary expenses (NCAA Center). However Judge Claudia Wilken partially granted class action status in a lawsuit concerning the use of college athletes' names and likenesses. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled the plaintiffs, including former and current Division I men's basketball players and Football Bowl Subdivision players, will be allowed to challenge the NCAA's current restrictions on what athletes might receive in exchange for playing sports. The ruling sets up the prospect of a fundamental change in scholarship rules and the concept of amateurism (Berkowitz 3). This would help athletes to be able to fight for the compensated pay.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is one of the biggest sports organizations in the United States. One of the most divisive issues relating to the NCAA over the last several years has been the issue of athlete compensation. There are many sports—particularly football and basketball—that bring in incredible amounts of revenue to colleges across the country; therefore, whether or not athletes should be compensated for their role in college sports has become a topic of debate. While scholarship athletes are already compensated by their access to tutors, meals and a free education, the concept of the student-athlete has deteriorated over time and thus athletes should be able to make money by signing autographs or making public appearances while they are in school. In addition, the big four American professional sports do not give amateurs an opportunity to play aside from Major League Baseball, which funnels athletes to college sports and in turn ushers them into a place where they cannot profit from their athletic ability. The issue is clearly a complex and unethical one. It would be difficult for schools to pay athletes fairly as certain sports would appear entitled to more money based on profitability; however, players should undoubtedly be able to benefit from their athletic prowess by selling merchandise and profiting from their stature in general. The NCAA’s stance hindering players’ ability to sell autographs and other memorabilia is just as important to this

With the increasing popularity of college sports over the past couple of years, a very controversial topic has risen pertaining to whether college athletes should receive payment or not for playing. The main problem behind the topic of paying college athletes is that college sports rake in massive amounts of revenue for their respective schools, athletic staff, and the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletics Association) but the athletes which participate in these sports and create all the revenue reap none of the financial benefits. To create a better understanding of how profitable college sports are, I present the following quote from Tom Gerencer’s article, “How Much Money Does the NCAA Make?”, “The NCAA makes about $1 billion per year. College athletics as a whole pulls in about $12 billion annually.” (Gerencer 2016) After grasping how much the NCAA and schools profit from college sports, it is very easy to see why there is a problem and why so many people argue that college athletes should be paid for their play. Along with the many supporters of college athletes being paid, there are various people who believe they should not due to their beliefs of education being more important than anything else in college. Now, although college athletes not being paid is the main problem it is not the only problem; the NCAA, which is the organization which runs all college sports, are adamant about college sports being an amateur league and because of this they do not allow athletes

During the summer of 2013 one of the biggest outrages in all sports, not just the collegiate division, was the story of Texas A&M’s golden boy Johnny Manziel. At the beginning of the football season Manziel shocked fans around the country with his remarkable abilities; abilities that would later make him the youngest Heisman winner at the time. However, a couple of months later no one would be talking about his talent or his Heisman, but the allegations surrounded around Manziel selling his signature on eBay for money. The NCAA strictly bans collegiate athletes to benefit in any way when it comes to their name and the revenue that comes with it. This shined light on one of the major controversies in college sports; the dispute of whether it is right to allow student athletes to benefit off their names. The NCAA ought to allow collegiate athletes the ability to profit off the use of their name because by allowing players to receive revenues it would ease the negative effects of playing collegiate sports for the student athletes.

By 2017, the National Collegiate Athletic Association had not amended the status of banning student-athletes from being paid. This, in turn, has allowed higher educational institutions to exploit college athletes into making revenue-generating opportunities without giving college athletes their fair share (Blutman, p 7). Individuals of the NCAA are against paying college athletes claim that there is no compelling strategy to quantify a fair share of all athletes. However, the college athletics association, NCAA, is a billion-dollar generating enterprise established by athletes who did not receive any amount as compensation (Blutman, p 8). Regardless of the questions and lack of an adequate compensation

This also takes time away from college athletes who would need the extra money from picking up a job, rather than practicing every day for their sport, and playing in games and traveling. In addition, one person who is representative of the unfair restrictions set upon college athletes is Ed O’Bannon, who is suing the NCAA for using his image in a basketball video game. O’Bannon is suing because he knows that the NCAA is making a lot of money off of the video game which includes his image, jersey number, and name, and yet has received no compensation from the video game. In addition, O’Bannon’s lawsuit over NCAA has also sparked many other questions about whether or not college athletes should be paid in addition to their scholarships or not. “The high coaches’ salaries and rapidly increasing spending on training facilities at many schools suggest that these schools would, in fact, be able to afford to offer their student-athletes a limited share of the licensing revenue generated from their use of the student-athlete's’ own names, images, and likenesses,” Judge Wilken wrote. Scholarships granted to athletes are also not necessarily “full rides”. “The report by Ithaca College researchers and a national athletes' advocacy group shows that the average "full scholarship" Division I athlete winds up having to pay $2,951

This takes the freedom away from the athletes, exempting them to be able to negotiate their rights. Another NCAA restriction is all Division 1 athletes are required by the NCAA to sign the Athletic Statement. This statement consists a section that grants permission for the NCAA, member schools, conferences and “a third party acting on behalf of the NCAA” to use an athlete’s name or image for promotions, but not allowing the athlete to profit off their own name or image (Bernfeld). This statement is ways for the NCAA to use restrictions in order to legally avoid paying college athletes while still making a profit for the

The ethical dilemma that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) faced in this case was prioritizing the rights of the individual as opposed to prioritizing the revenues of the organization. This could also be interpreted as a stakeholder versus shareholder situation in which the stakeholders are the student athletes and the shareholders are the universities that expect to earn revenue from their athletics teams. The NCAA has a responsibility towards both groups. As a national organization, they would want to protect the rights of the individuals in order to defend student athletes from exploitation and from being taken advantage of. This meant that students could not be used for advertising or marketing purposes. However, the NCAA

Imagine sitting down in the comforts of your home, relaxing on the couch, and eating your favorite junk food while playing your favorite video game. What if you 're actually playing as yourself on the newest NCAA football or basketball game. Wouldn 't that be awesome? Believe it or not it didn 't seem that awesome when Ed O 'Bannon, a former UCLA power forward, had a realization. O 'Bannon wondered why he wasn 't getting any compensation for being on the video game who had duplicated his image onto the game. As time went on and more athletes, past and present, were added as plaintiffs the case started to evolve. Not only did the case involve the NCAA video games, but the NCAA brand as a whole. Colleges make a fortune off athletes who in turn play in hopes of a professional career; however, even though athletes who play in college are granted a scholarship many struggle to pay for things such as laundry or food. Although the court ruled that NCAA violated it 's anti-trust laws in making the video games, the court still ruled in favor of amateurism in sports after the appeal of granting $5,000 payments to athletes. So the question still remains, should college athletes be paid to play? I propose that college athletes get a percentage of the profit directly from the Colleges based upon how much the specific sport profits within the Association.

Because of recent court cases such as O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the issue of whether intercollegiate student-athletes should be compensated for their athletic appearances on behalf of colleges has been featured in the news and been the subject of much scholarly writing. This literature review will focus on the major themes discussed in peer reviewed journals and law reviews as well as the main judicial opinions on this issue to this point. As colleges and the NCAA continue to battle over the appropriate role of profit and amateurism