Phil Knight's Interventions

College athletics is a very diverse organization involving a lot of students, mainly as the players, and non-students such as officials, coaches and others. The leading governing body for college athletics is the National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA. College sports is itself a big industry involving sponsorships, TV networks, endorsements, retail products and marketing. But in spite of it being a big business, the players are not compensated for the work they deliver. This opens up two opinions: should players be paid, or should they not? Kristi Dosh’s article, “The Problems With Paying College Athletes”, (UNCLEAR)discusses where the coaches’ money come from to pay student athletes. On the other hand, Mark Cassell’s article, “College Athletes Should Be Able To Negotiate Compensation”, debates how athletes should be able to negotiate their compensation. This paper will evaluate the evidence of both Dosh and Cassell in order to determine which argument is more effective.

Nike is the leading endorser of all major sport companies. According to Forbes.com, “Nike total revenue was fourteen billion dollars for the year of 2013.” Oregon University is one of the many schools, which is sponsored by Nike. Before Nike took over as Oregon University official sponsor, they had a mediocre athletic program. The Chief Executive Officer of Nike, Phil Knight, decided to invest into Oregon University. Phil Knight invested an undermined amount of funds to the athletic program. So, that the whole athletic department did not have to worry about anything. Phil Knight, for example, expanded the stadium seating for the football team, provided a state of the art training facilities, and a unlimited supply of costume made uniforms. Phil Knight investment alone increased athletic recruitment and student enrollment. The Oregon University football since then has made several Bowl Championship Series appearances. Phil Knight investment had played

Unfortunately, the same factor that contributed to Nike’s exponential growth (low-cost labor and production) also contributed to hurting Nike’s public image as a leader in “athleticism, health and fitness, and innovative marketing and design” (Locke, 2002). Nike was criticized for unethical practices by their subcontractors, which included underpaid workers, poor working conditions, child labor, and abuse (Locke, 2002).

Debating to pay college athletes for their time, effort, and the money the help generate for the school they attend has been an ongoing debate for countless years. This issue has become more prevalent in recent years because of the expense of living in today’s economy, and the fact that big-time college athletes contribute but do not receive any of the millions of dollars generated by their sports. Stanley Eitzen, a professor emeritus of sociology at Colorado State University, former president of the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport, and the author of Fair and Foul: Beyond the Myths and Paradoxes of Sport, stands up for athletes and demands that society and the NCAA [National Collegiate Athletic Association], reconsider

Continuing with this big picture view, college athletic salaries are bad news for the quality of collegiate sportsmanship. President of the NCAA, Myles Brand, once stated, “If you start paying athletes, you essentially ruin the integrity of the college game.” What Mr. Brand means by this is that once the motivation of the player is changed to a fixed monetary value rather than the pride and passion of the sport, college athletics become devalued and the level of sportsmanship among players alike is dismantled. A Division I board of director chairman and Chancellor at the University of Kansas agreed with Brand is stating, “even if born of the best intentions, pay for play is the worst of ideas.” This director compares the situation to a “slippery slope” in which college sports would eventually fall to corruption, with new questions and debates being raised and athletes becoming enveloped with the idea of “gaining more money” instead of “winning more games”

Every athlete has experienced winning and losing, and most can tell you that money is the last thing on their mind after a win. “About two percent of high school athletes are awarded athletic scholarships to compete in college” (NCAA, 2011). Common sense tells people that it is a privilege to get to play at the collegiate level as well as to be awarded an athletic scholarship. Being given such an opportunity should not be taken for granted. College athletics are driven by passion and desire to succeed, through research this paper will address a lot of different issues, from if college athletes should be paid and why, as well as the consequences of them being paid for everybody

In recent years, collegiate athletics has evolved from the original spectrum of rivalry competition into a business model that focuses on branding and expanding markets. According to Stephanie Harrison-Dyer (2011), “Sport is too much a game to be business and too much a business to be a game” (p. 1). Although competitive sport has contributed remarkably to human culture, the increased popularity of sport and sport enthusiasts has generated a greater concern for moral and ethical conduct among athletes (Harrison-Dyer, 2011). With increased pressure on administrators

Universities establish their reputation in their accreditation, the success rate of their students, and believe it or not, their athletic achievements. Upon applying to colleges, an applicant will almost always base their interest in the institution on its educational value, location, student feedback, and sports. Many of these universities grant extremely generous scholarships to student athletes, offering them a practically free education. While some agree with this method of accommodation, others argue that these athletes are being taken advantage of. They contest the college’s intentions by claiming that it is simply profiting from the labor of its football and basketball teams. The current question at hand is whether or not colleges and universities should pay their student athletes. However, I believe that doing so would devalue the university’s education by insinuating that athletics are greater than or come before academics. This would also be an unfair advantage, given the countless other students that get academic scholarships and take part in collegiate clubs but receive no additional monetary help. There are also the students of the arts who participate in numerous performances and events that are equivalent to the work put forth by sports players. Therefore, in its simplest of terms, paying student athletes would just be inequitable.

Americans have become consumed by the world of college athletics. This excitement can be seen all around us. Here at the University of Florida, we experience the energy of division I college sports every day. Whether we choose to participate on football game days, wear Gator athletic apparel, or make conversation every day revolving around topics such as “Tebow’s non-existent NFL career” or “that one basketball player that kept us out of the championship”, the star athletes of our universities become household names across the country. Although it seems to be a life of fame and fortune for these individuals that live the life of a star student athlete, it comes at a cost. Today, college athletes are exploited because of the lack of

College sports support a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States, yet the principals whose performance on the field or in packed stadiums across the country are strictly amateurs who are forbidden to accept monetary compensation for their contributions, at least technically. Perhaps no better example exists of the tremendous importance of major college sports programs than the current controversy that recently came to light involving the legendary Pennsylvania State University Football program in connection with the apparent long-term tolerance of and refusal to take appropriate action against Jerry Sandusky, the defensive coordinator for the legendary coach Joe Paterno. Had the same types of allegations been levied against a member of the university's academic faculty, the institution surely would have taken appropriate action immediately. Meanwhile, in many respects, college athletes at large institutions competing at the highest levels routinely receive compensation in various forms that are impermissible, far beyond the already valuable full scholarships and room and board to which they are entitled in return for their matriculating at their institutions. That reality has prompted some to suggest that college athletes should be paid for their services. While that approach might resolve the obvious hypocrisy inherent in the system as well as the fiction behind the proverbial "student athlete," paying

Since the inception of high profile intercollegiate athletics, there has been a debate regarding the place of athletics within the structure of higher education. Within the last few decades, this debate has intensified as intercollegiate athletics has transformed into a multi-billion dollar industry that shifted the way athletic departments operate. College athletic departments have been able to generate millions of dollars in revenue through corporate partnerships, television contracts, alumni and donor support, and ticket sales (Toma, 2003). Specifically, this athletic revenue is primarily generated by football and basketball programs. College athletics has entered the “show business phase as football and basketball have evolved into commercial entertainment products (Duderstadt, p.69).” As the commercialization of collegiate athletics continue grow, the concept of student-athlete amateurism has become increasingly strained as there has been a push for providing student-athletes, specifically in football and basketball, additional compensation for their play.

Readers gain a sense of trust with McDougall because his work highlights a notable successor in the realm of running and athletic achievement. McDougall reports the achievements of Stanford University head coach Vin Lananna, whose track and cross-country teams won five NCAA team championships and twenty-two individual titles, and being named NCAA Cross Country Coach of the Year (169). McDougall strategically profiles the laudable reputation of coach Lananna’s success in coaching by discussing his experiences. Coach Lananna knew of the Nike mythos, while the brand represented vitality and wealth, the product was costly and detrimental to those who wore it. This example increases the effectiveness and the believability of McDougall’s argument by providing expert opinion that big running companies severely hindered athletic ability.

College athletes are financially exploited by the NCAA and universities by not being properly rewarded for their services. In the area of college athletics, exploitation should be defined as, “an individual gaining something by taking an unfair advantage of another individual” (Miller). Exploitation in college athletics is especially problematic because student-athletes are not being justly compensated for their services to their school nor are they receiving a true education. Players are compensated for playing with much less than what they are worth because of strict NCAA rules that are in place to protect athletes “from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises” (NCAA). The NCAA protects it’s athletes through its core value of amateurism, which refers to the fact the athletes, “do not receive remuneration for their athletic services” (Miller). The organization is hiding behind their claim of player amateurism to escape the demand for player payment. Although it is a non-profit organization, the NCAA, “has evolved into a multi-billion dollar industry where many of the schools’ annual revenues reach above $260 million” (Miller). Universities and athletic departments, “have gained huge gate receipts, television revenues, national visibility, donors to university programs, and more as a result of the performances of gifted basketball and football players” (Rheenen). When there is a surplus, none of it goes to increasing scholarships, it is used to pay for

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is a multibillion-dollar industry that has the excitement of fans, attention from the medias, million dollar coaches, and slave-working athletes. It became a bigger business in the last decades of the 20th century drawing broadcast networks, cable networks, commercial endorsement deals, and fans. However, the heart and soul of this business are the student-athletes. Players earn millions to billions of dollars for schools and private companies but must cheat their ways through academics because of demanding schedules, uttering responsibilities, lacking sleep, and screeching injuries. The institutions of athletic scholarships confirmed competitive sports over academics for many players. The school employees earn scholarships that pay for tuition and dorm rooms but fall short of the total cost of attending school. Athletic scholarships are given out once a year, so promises of a full ride is thin. While athletes are contributing, the schools are making. The unjust approach athletes deal to play the sport he or she loves to become an employee of a school and a prize of wage. Athletes created a movement demanding more compensation and better treatment, because they are tired of broken promises by the slow pace system. Although critics believe athletes are exploiting, supporters believe scholars should receive a sufficient reimbursement because the load of debt, unfair treatment, health issues, corruption, and

Phil Knight and his track-and-field coach Bill Bowerman found one of the world’s well-known sports brand, Nike in 1964. With the beginning of Nike first “office” being the laundry room of Knight’s family home it has now become the biggest sports and fitness company in the world with international recognition. The vision statement of Nike as an organization was to think ahead in the long term and not to simply focus and be content with the present as described by Tom Clarke, chief executive of Nike.