Student Athletes 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.

Student athletes at division I schools, where an immense amount of revenue is generated at games and events, are not being paid for their work. This is immoral because the NCAA uses the athlete’s likeness and then the athletes get no direct (monetary) compensation. We should approach evaluating the morality of student athletes using the normative theory of Utilitarianism that supports the claim that student athletes are exploited in their work and on the other hand, Kant Ethics that claims the results of the athletes do not matter, because consequences do not matter.

When it comes to college athletics, there always will be a problem that arises. It is one of the most controversial topics there is. One of the main issues within athletics is the idea of whether to pay college athletes or not. Several studies have been done along with articles from various sources. This has been on the rise especially since “March Madness” is coming up. “March Madness” may only consist of three weekends, however, an 11 billion dollar deal is made to televise the games (Wilbon). This is when you have to take the time to sit back and contemplate whether these college athletes really are getting the fair end of the stick. Under NCAA laws it is forbidden to pay these athletes for their performance yet at the same time they

How would you feel to give yourself to a collegiate organization, strive to succeed, bring in huge amounts of revenue, and recognition of your college institute and not receive a or dime for their Entertaining contribution? Well, this is the same question that Shipnuck and Alan asked themselves when they wrote this article in support of collegiate athlete payment. For O Bannon just the opportunity to play his favorite sport at the college level and shine was all the compensation he ever needed, but he “has gladly taken up the fight in the most important piece of litigation in the history of collegiate athletics. O’Bannon v. NCAA seeks to establish a form of revenue sharing that would give a slice of the pie to the athletes who, up until now,

Purpose: to connect high school athletes with the colleges that will give them the best chnce to

Donald Delahaye, a kicker for UCF you may have heard of him. Lost his NCAA eligibility for making and profiting of his YouTube videos. Another name you may know LiAngelo Ball. Couldn’t profit or promote his family made business of Big Baller Brand (BBB) because of NCAA eligibility rules. His little brother LaMelo Ball could lose his NCAA eligibility for making and profiting off his own signature shoe. These athletes all have something in common. All these athletes, these people have either had their eligibility taken or in jeopardy because they were profiting off their image, content, or likeness. College coaches, programs, and schools make millions off their student athletes and the NCAA billions off the student athletes. As more people

Thesis: College athletes should not get paid due to the financial restrictions of the NCAA, the imbalance of competition, and the fact that these young adults are students.

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.

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 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is an organization of colleges and universities that are dedicated to the well-being and lifelong success of college athletes (“What”). The NCAA’s website states, “The NCAA was founded in 1906 to protect young people from the dangerous and exploitive athletic practices of the time” (Treadway). So much has changed in the world of college athletics since 1906. For instance, the Title IX law was created to insure the equality of men’s and women’s sports. More importantly, television networks have begun paying schools large amounts of money for the rights to broadcast their games on television. It was recently announced that NBC Sports will pay the University of Notre Dame an average of fifteen million dollars per year for the rights to televise the Fighting Irish’s home football games (“NBC”). Inevitably, with all of this money being paid to the colleges and universities, a discussion has begun about the possibility of paying

On July 21, 2009, former University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) basketball star, Edward O’Bannon, Jr filed suit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Electronic Arts (EA) and Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC) over the use of former and current players’ images in DVD’s, video games, photographs, apparel and other material while prohibiting current and former Division 1 NCAA players from receiving any compensation. Mr. O’Bannon believed this is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890). The NCAA disagrees with the charges as presented and stated that the rules regarding compensation to student athletes are necessary to protect collegiate sports and the educational mission of the colleges involved.

College athletes are not being paid for their labor, which schools profit from. “The NCAA (National College Athletics Association) earns about $4 billion in licensing fees each year. In 2010, the NCAA signed a 14-year, $10.8 billion contract with CBS and Turner Sports to have exclusive rights to show the men’s college basketball tournament, which takes place every year” (Miller). Student-athletes are being exploited by the NCAA and there’s nothing they can do about it. Exploitation happens when student-athletes, who are making large amounts of money for their schools, often are not receiving any kind of admissible, quality education. Another form a student-athlete is exploited, the value of

The following Case Study is about the National Collegiate Athletic Association unethical act in the sport college league. How this league creates big amounts of money which is invest in all short of projects rather than take care of the student-athletes. The study case highlight the two main principles issue that the National Collegiate Athletic Association faces; the money how the student are not getting paid and the academic versus sport.

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