Summary Of The Shame Of College Sports

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.

With the universities pulling in more than twelve billion dollars, the rate of growth for college athletics surpasses companies like McDonalds and Chevron (Finkel, 2013). The athletes claim they are making all the money, but do not see a dime of this revenue. The age-old notion that the collegiate athletes are amateurs and students, binds them into not being paid by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). This pay for play discussion has been talked about since the early 1900s but recently large steps are being made to actually make a change. There are many perspectives on the payment of collegiate student athletes coming from the NCAA, the athletes themselves, and the university officials.

College athletic programs are among the most popular sporting events in America. With this rise in popularity, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its colleges have also seen a rise in revenue in recent years. In 2014, the NCAA made over 900 million dollars in revenue. Some collegiate coaches, such as Kentucky’s John Calipari, have yearly salaries in the millions, not counting incentives and endorsement deals. While, clearly, money is being made, NCAA regulations ban collegiate athletes from being paid. Many question this rule and argue that athletes at the college level earn and deserve pay for play. The debate to pay or not to pay college athletes rages on despite the latest court ruling supporting NCAA policies. Because colleges and universities earn such a profit from sporting events, many fans feel it is only fair to distribute some of the wealth to the players. Supporters of paying student athletes feel that these young men and women should be fairly compensated for the time demanded of the athletes and the stress put on the athletes, physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially. Those in favor of paying college athletes contend that athletic and academic work ethic at both high school and collegiate levels will improve, as well as, fiscal responsibility in these young adults. The NCAA argues that paying athletes would negatively affect their

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.

It is the NCAA’s policy that no student athlete shall receive any special benefits or compensation in regard to their status as an athlete of a university. This basically means that no player can accept gifts or services with any special benefits from school or athletic personnel, or receive any benefits for outside entrepreneurship for reasons regarding their play. For example, a student athlete cannot sign a jersey with their number on it and exchange it for any type of compensation. However, over the past few years, many scandalous conspiracies of soliciting services to athletes for their commitment and play have surfaced. Due to the NCAA’s stance on this issue many of these violations have left athletics programs with sanctions that in reality are very unnecessary and hardly ever punish those who initially violated the rules. The fact is that the college athletics generates on average 10.5 billion dollars of revenue annually, and the NCAA organization alone, about 720 million annually. Of that 720 million that the NCAA accounts for, only 60 percent of that is returned to the Division I universities whose athletics accounted for almost all of it. The rest is dispersed into other funds such as championship games and the national office services, with a small amount being paid to division II and III schools. However, of that 60 percent paid back to the Division I schools, which amounts to approximately 430 million dollars, the majority is spent by the University on

In the essay “The Shame of College Sports,” Taylor Branch examines the flaws of the National Collegiate Athletic Association in college sports regarding “amateurism” (Branch 227) and the “student-athlete” (227). In doing so, Branch discusses the history of college sports and the National Collegiate Athletic Association while emphasizing certain regulations such as allowing multinational organizations to advertise their brand on athletic gear but athletes cannot use any of their memorabilia to get cash or a free tattoo at a tattoo parlor (227). Branch also argues that athletes are being manipulated for their skills and fame from the National Collegiate Athletic Association and universities and further irritates that they make money off the “unpaid

“College Athletes for Hire, The Evolution and Legacy of the NCAA’s Amateur Myth” written by Allen L. Sack and Ellen J. Staurowsky. In their book, the authors enlighten the reader on such issues as athletic scholarships, professionalism in college sports, and favoritism for athletes as well as many more important legal, and ethical issues that we as a country need to address. In this paper I will not do a standard book report by simply regurgitating the information I read in their book.

The popularity of college sports and its value to entertainment is skyrocketing. The NCAA is the head organization in control of a hundred billion dollar industry. The disgusting disparity arrives at the difference between what

In Joe Nocera’s article, “Let’s Start Paying College Athletes”, he argues that college athletes should be paid for playing sports. Nocera begins his article by providing an example of how some athletes will receive money that is perfectly fine while other athletes cannot accept any money or else that player will be in violation of NCAA rules. It’s evident that there are large amounts of money involved in the college sports. Top college coaches can make as much or more than professional coaches. Together with men’s basketball, College football have become huge commercial enterprises generating huge amounts of annual revenue (Nocera, 2011).

There is blatant, inarguable proof that the players and their talents are being exploited. These athletes are the draw to the games. They are the reason people watch and cheer on their teams. The amount of money given as a “full” scholarship is a marginal benefit only a drop in the bucket when compared to the market value of a player’s talent and skills. Athletic scholarships, as will be explained later, is indeed financial assistance but still leaves the student athlete living below, or at best slightly above, the poverty line. The NCAA and the respective universities has a duty to be concerned with the overall well-being of its players, not just whether or not an injury would keep their star player from playing in the upcoming game. The NCAA ought to consider the social responsibility of meeting the needs of its players, subsequently initiating a reformation of the NCAA bylaws concerning paying college athletes.

“It’s down to seven seconds. You see the time…Whittenburg…. Oh it’s a long ways, Oh he’s there! They won it…on a dunk!” Billy Packer said this when covering the historical run by the NC State Wolfpack to win the Division 1 NCAA tournament in a dramatic fashion. A team with no chance of making the tournament, let alone winning the championship, does the impossible and wins the NCAA Division 1 championship. Despite NC State being a smaller school compared to the big basketball powerhouses like Virginia, UNC, Houston and many others, they had players work and will their way to the finish line. If players were paid, you wouldn’t see players like Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, or Ralph Sampson on different teams. It would be the college with the most money, could pay the best student-athletes, the most money and Cinderella stories for the most part would disappear. Dynasties of college sports would be made. Money would ruin college sports more than it already has. It has already stripped championships, ruined players images and futures, and tarnished reputations of colleges. The Fab 5, the near “3-Pete” for Oklahoma University, and the USC Trojans football team scandal, are just a few instances where college sports were affected wrongly by the idea of “play for pay.” Colleges and Universities should not pay students to participate in college sports because of all the benefits the athletes receive, the fact that the colleges wouldn’t be able to pay for other

Evidently the college athletes are deprived of the pay that they should be getting from the exquisite display of talent that not only entertains millions across the globe but also brings in enormous amounts to the respective colleges (Thompson, 2013). Instead, there is a faรงade propagated that the benefits derived from the program in form of scholarships, grants and related benefits like housing. However, these gains are reversed by the prohibitive laws against the athletes receiving gifts, be it material or monetary, from admirers and willing sponsors (NCAA, 2013). Indeed, the NCAA is particular about this 'vice' and conducts thorough investigations, with severe consequences tied to it (Wolf, 2013). The NCAA argues that these measures and conditions are meant to streamline the education, make the students concentrate of graduating first and have a level playing field among all the colleges. NCAA argues that opening up the space for

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.

Salaries, wages, and compensations have always been major and generally controversial topics in democratic America. And, with the rising popularity of college athletics, particularly football, compensation (or lack thereof) for college athletes has recently been a hot topic in American sports. While some of the debate stems from the similarity between responsibilities college athletes have to their programs and those of professionals, most of the issue involves the principles of amateurism. Recent “scandals” involving college athletes such as Terrelle Pryor, Johnny Manziel, and Todd Gurley have raised questions about the ethics of amateurism, particularly with regard to the NCAA organization. The issue is found in a very gray area, where there is most likely no definitive one-size-fits-all solution, but the resolution of this issue is one that will change and shape the future of college athletics across the national landscape.

College sports are big business. For many universities, the athletic program serves as a cash-generating machine. Exploited athletes generate millions of dollars for the NCAA and their schools, and never see a dime. In terms of profit, if all ties with the university were eliminated, an athletic program acting as its own separate entity could compete with some fortune 500 companies. So, why do the vital pieces of the machine, the players, fail to receive any compensation for their performance? The answer lies in the money-hungry NCAA and their practice of hoarding all the revenue. College athletes should receive payment for their play to make their college experience more bearable because they create huge profits and