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 athletic department of colleges are a great source of revenue that colleges never wish to lose or deplete profits. In an article noted by Ryan Vanderford, “In 2012, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) reported $871.6 million in revenue. In the 2012-13 fiscal year, the University of Alabama’s Athletic Department alone made $143.4 million, combining proceeds from ticket sales, donations to the athletic department, media rights, branding, and numerous other revenue streams”.(Vanderford 1) There is no changing this, schools can afford to pay athletes something in return for the hard work they put in to the sport. This is a business, the bosses that sit back and collect all the profits are the coaches, NCAA and the colleges,
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.
Since its inception in 1906, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, commonly known as simply the NCAA, has pondered the burning question of whether student-athletes should be compensated for their play. Currently, the NCAA employs an amateurism policy, an eligibility regulation that all potential Division I athletes must abide by to participate in their respective sports. This set of rules prohibits players from receiving any form of compensation, whether that be as a result of participating in a sport, being awarded prize money, or signing with an agent. Athletes are allowed to accept financial aid administered by the university, but this generally small subsidy for education is accompanied with uncertainty, and is the only form of “payment” they are permitted to collect. However, there is sufficient evidence that college athletes should be paid as compensation for the money they make for the NCAA, the negative effects that sports have on the players ' lives, the benefits that the sports bring to the school, and for the potential profits missed on social media because of NCAA regulations.
The NCAA has gone to the extreme by forcing insane rules and regulations on all universities and players within its grasp. The result is an 800-page book of NCAA rules and regulations for limiting recruiting expenses and player compensation, accompanied by a seemingly perpetual stream of scandals (Sanderson and Siegfried). Up until last year, the NCAA allowed schools to provide athletes with bagels, but not spreads like butter or cream cheese (Smith 14). The NCAA also does not have a student-assistance fund to help athletes cover expenses not covered by an athletic scholarship (Sander, Wolverton, and Fuller A22). Examples of these expenses are personal, family, and medical
Over the course of the past few decades, college athletics have drastically increased in popularity throughout the United States. Television channels, news stations, and live-stream broadcasting websites have made viewing college sports more accessible. With the increased fan base, many people have debated over the issue of whether college athletes, specifically Division I recruits, should be compensated for their contribution to the university. Intercollegiate sports provide a crucial amount of the institution’s revenue, as well as attract prospective high school students to attend. Yet with this surplus of income, no athletes are compensated for their participation within an athletic program. Written within the National Collegiate Athletic Association rules and regulations, it states that athletes are not allowed to participate in any athletic competition if they have ever been paid, or promised to be paid, by their respective institution (NCAA). This sanction enforced by the NCAA has been a topic of debate for years as many avid sports fans provide key examples of the benefits that paying athletes would have on the school and the environment of college athletics as a whole. As a college athlete myself, I support the other side of the argument, in congruence with the NCAA, because I have first-hand experience with the responsibilities and time-management that a student-athlete at the college level requires.
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
As a college student, one must attend classes, complete work specific to their degree requirements and maintain a minimum grade point average as sanctioned by the NCAA to participate in athletics. The NCAA is an “organization dedicated to safeguarding the well-being of student-athletes and equipping them with the skills to succeed on the playing field, in the classroom and throughout life”. The NCAA has put in place a set of rules to assure fair and safe competition at the collegiate level. Arguably one the most debatable topics is the NCAA rule that states “College athletes are not to be paid, not to cash in on their prominence, never to cross any kind of line of professionalism.”
While football players at the University of Illinois are working at their sport or performing their sport nearly 32 hours a week, which is all right after coming from a full class schedule. The NCAA wants to treat student athletes like regular students, when these athletes are the farthest thing from being regular students. These athletes are expected just like the rest of the student body to perform at their highest capability in the classroom, but as well at their peak athletic ability in practice or in a game right after they have spent the day draining themselves into their school
For over a century, college athletics have thrilled generations of fans; from alumni gathered in stadiums to armchair quarterbacks, the fervor of team loyalty reaches spiritual proportions. This popularity is evident from the gigantic economy college athletics have created, with the NCAA raking in nearly eleven billion dollars last year (Edelman 7). A problem overlooked in spite of this boom is the exploitation of the people who make this venture so profitable: the players. Although it has not always been the case, the majority of players now are grossly undercompensated for contributions to their alma maters, the sport, and the burgeoning economy created by the two. College athletes are exploited when universities refuse to acknowledge
With the passing of another academic year, fans were able to enjoy yet another nail-biting NCAA Basketball Tournament and a highlight filled football season. Most would agree that the NCAA provides competitive sport as popular as the professionals. In fact, its annual revenue makes that point clear. College football and basketball generate more than the National Basketball Association, a total of more than $6 billion yearly. There is one major difference between the two associations, however. NBA players get paid for the revenue they help bring in, while NCAA athletes receive no monetary compensation. The promise of a free education is not enough anymore if the NCAA wants to act as a money making business, and not reward those who help make it profitable. If the NCAA does not want to pay college athletes, than it should not hold these players back from entering the professional game. However, colluding with the NBA and the NFL, athletes are restricted when it comes to joining the pro ranks. With these two ideas combined, athletes are drawn to the college game out of necessity, and not always desire. Some writers, like Stanley Eitzen, have even compared the system to indentured servitude or a “plantation system.” Concerning the revenue sports of men’s basketball and football, the players should be entitled to some monetary compensation for their work, as well as the right to enter the professional leagues at an age that suits their abilities.
The obscurity of what student athletes should get paid is the major problem. Many people would see it unfair for a quarterback of a powerhouse college team to receive $5,000, but a tennis player of a college e team to receive $ 1,500, NCAA officials mentioned that fewer than 7% of Division I athletic programs made money between ’04 and ‘10 (Dohrmann). Dohrmann agrees that “the books are cooked “(qtd by Ross). With revenue from national televised games and tickets sales, it is estimated that the 7% should be up to around 80%. The NCAA approved for schools the option to raise the student athlete’s scholarships by $2,000, but several schools pleaded that could not afford to do this.
But why haven’t the athletes been able to see some of that extra revenue? After all, without the players there wouldn’t be any revenue. The thought that college sports can be so extremely profitable, especially for the NCAA seems a little ridiculous. Why are they able to keep this much money while also finding a way around paying the athletes who actually bring in the revenue? It is a question that doesn’t seem to have an answer. Athletes are making money and the NCAA doesn’t want to share. One stance that the NCAA has is the argument that “They (college athletes) are students receiving access to a college education through their participation in sports, for which they earn scholarships to pay tuition, fees, room and board, and other allowable expenses. Collegiate sports is not a career or profession. It is the students ' vehicle to a higher education degree”. (Mitchell) It is an easy stance to have when the NCAA doesn’t have to pay for the free education, the universities do.
Decision Making Among NCAA Autonomy Institutions 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.
The “contradiction at the heart of big-time college football,” as Michael Oriard describes it, is the competing demands of marketing and education. The 1890s proved to university administrators that there was an enormous market for collegiate football, which postulated opportunities for university building. Since this ubiquitous realization, there has coincided this blatant, yet unchanging contradiction that academic institutions are permitted to profit off of the services provided by its student-athletes while the athletes must idly accept that they are amateurs, donating their efforts to their respective schools. The schools then direct this revenue toward strengthening their athletic departments, and thus continues this seemingly endless growth of big-time college sports, all while athletes remain uncompensated and academics continue to take a backseat.