Shrub's Case Study

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.

College athletics assume a large role in the entertainment industry of America. Each week, millions of people tune in to watch their favorite team, buy tickets to go to the games, or spend money on university athletic merchandise to show their pride. The NCAA and universities benefit enormously from college sports. The top 10 total revenues generated by universities were all well over the $100,000,000 mark in 2012 (“College Finances 2012”). The University of Texas tops the list with $163,295,115 total revenue from athletics (“College Finances 2012”). Last football season, Texas A&M University quarterback Johnny Manziel won the Heisman Trophy. As the first freshman to ever win the trophy, he propagated over 1.8 million media impressions which translated to $37 million of media exposure (Cook). The University’s licensing revenue jumped 23% this past year due to the success of one player (Cook). The NCAA itself generated $871,600,000 in revenue from the championship games (“College Finances 2012”). All of this revenue is impossible without the student-athletes. The NCAA is strict on making sure that athletes should be treated no different from any other student (Blias). However, the athletes are involved in a heavily commercialized multi-billion dollar industry. As amateurs, athletes remain restricted solely to scholarships as the only form

Intercollegiate sports have been around since the 1850s to promote athletes to play for the love of the game and not for income. Recently, two different decisions have endangered this tradition: the decision by the National Labor Relations Board to recognize the Northwestern University football team as employees of the university and a federal judge’s decision regarding payment to football and men’s basketball players. Both decisions favor the idea of paying NCAA athletes because their games generate massive income; from ticket sales, merchandising, and TV and marketing contracts, that benefit the university, but not the athletes themselves (Majerol). Nonetheless, NCAA athletes should not be paid because of the problems that would arise from

The argument of whether or not the NCAA should pay its athletes has been debated for around 8 years now, and right when it seems like there may be a breakthrough another reason comes up for the issue to be put on hold. College athletic programs are multimillion dollar programs and the athletes who make this revenue possible are getting the bare minimum to make it by in these college programs. Last year the Texas A&M athletic program was at the top of the NCAA revenue list bringing in $192,608,876. A third of that revenue comes from ticket sales alone, which leaves the rest to television rights, licensing and other donations. In the NCAA there are 26 colleges which are bringing in over 100 million dollars in NCAA revenue (USA Today 1). But still, Horace claims that “there is a misconception that athletic programs in general are profitable and are making hand-over fist. While truly most operate at a cost to the institution”.

College sports bring in a massive amount of revenue. Because of this, the argument of athletes deserving some of the income arrises. Some believe that “everyone associated with [college football] is getting rich except the people whose labor creates the value” (Lewis). Many say that the NCAA is there to “ensure that the universities it polices keep all the money for themselves” (Lewis). They think that it is unfair for athletes to put so much into the game and receive nothing out of it. Their argument fails to see the expenses the athletes and sports generate. Very few programs, after all expenses are paid, actually make a profit (NCAA). While it is understandable that people may believe the organizations are robbing their athletes of money,

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

In 2012, the NCAA generated 10.6 billion dollars in revenue; 5.6 billion due to ticket sells and 433 million dollars off of rights agreements but only have (“NCAA College Athletics Statistics,” 2012). Surely the NCAA has enough money to provide a stipend all of the 420,000 student-athletes. These players walk around schools and malls noticing stores selling their jerseys, shirts, and shoes, making millions off of the merchandise. It is only right that the athletes wonder why they bring in millions to their university but still do not have a car

Every year the financial cost required for college sports to occur is increasing. From gigantic stadiums being built to hold 80,000 plus spectators, to multi million-dollar TV deals, and the sales of thousands of jerseys leaving campus stores. The revenue generated from college sports is a billon dollar industry, one that rewards coaches, staff members, and universities with ostentatious contracts, and gratuitous bonuses. Case and point, “Nick Saban is paid $5 million dollars more than Alabama 's chancellor” (Has College Football Become A Campus Commodity?). Amidst the profiteering, the NCAA is completely capitalizing on their student athletes’ likeness and achievements. The NCAA standard states college athletes should not receive payment since they are merely amateurs representing their schools. I contest this standard, arguing that athletes must be paid a salary in order to redeem the legitimacy of the NCAA.

Their fellow sports personnel gets to indulge in this gargantuan amount of money made off them, while they do not even get a minuscule percent of it. According to Stanley Eitzen, in his article “College Athletes Should be Paid,” in the year 2000, some football coaches were paid a minimum of 1,000,000 dollars in compensation. Considering this staggering figure, it is almost impossible to fathom why athletes are not being compensated something, out of all the money they generate. As a result of this deprivation of financial support, some athletes end up violating school policies. There were reports of athletes who have accepted improper benefits from coaches, fans and “boosters.” According to Dan Wetzel, in his article “Chris Webber deserves apology from Michigan, NCAA for disassociation treatment,” Former Michigan State basketball player Chris Webber, accepted money from “team booster” Ed Martin which resulted in a “humiliating 10 year disassociation penalty.” There have even been instances when athletes sold their jerseys and championship rings. These incidents resulted in suspension and expulsion of student athletes and the firing of coaches. Most, if not all of these cases, could have been prevented if universities have stepped in, and provided the financial help their athletes needed.

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;

Although it is nearly impossible to record exactly how much total revenue college sports bring in each year, it is predicted that last year the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) made over $11 billion dollars (Mitchell & Edelman). This is an incredible amount, but no thanks to anyone but the athletes who receive none of the money, and are the only ones restricted from the earnings. But that’s not all, this $11

The competition to be the best in a sport has been going on for nearly a hundred years, and that includes college sports. The difficulty of paying college athletes and still having fair competition has been a truly sticky situation. “Athletes during the early and mid 1900s were routinely recruited and paid to play; and there were several mistakes where individuals representing schools were not enrolled as students… in 1948, the NCAA adopted a ‘Sanity Code’ that limited financial athletes to tuition and fees and required that aid otherwise be given based on need” (Acquaviva, Johnson 1). There is a lot of ‘under the radar’ activity that goes on with colleges because some will do whatever it takes to have an advantage. This all has led to the debate, should college athletes be paid?

Most student-athletes playing a sport in college are there on an athletic scholarship. The scholarship is granted to them by their respective schools and is worth anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000. According to Edelman, the football program alone at University of Alabama brought in roughly 143.3 million dollars of revenue. In perspective, that’s about 2 million per player. Even though Alabama is an elite program and brings in more than the average football program, the NCAA brought in nearly $845 billion in 2011 per Sonny. Now it is obvious there many ways a university brings in revenue, but it is safe to say that a player is worth more than that $100,000 scholarship. In fact, a substantial share of college sports’ revenues stay in the hands of a select few administrators, athletic directors, and coaches. Now think about what college athletics would be without the world class athletes it has today, or without any athletes at all. If a school didn’t “award” athletes these scholarships, there would be

For educational institutions, the sport industry is a multi million dollar a year enterprise. For example each school that which makes it to the NCAA Basketball Tournament receives a half million dollars per game and a minimum of $300k just for being in a college football bowl game.

The NCAA’s greatest fear about paying student athletes is the money itself. They worry it will be spread thin between all the sports departments, but with all the money circulating around the college sports industry, they should not have any concerns. The two most popular college sports, football and men’s basketball, generate over $6 billion in annual revenue combined; more than the amount the National