The Ban On Student Athlete Compensation

Actions towards paying athletes are being taken and according to the TCU Daily Skiff, “There’s a legislation being passed around in the Big 12 states to provide athletes with an extra stipend in addition to their all-expenses paid education. The idea is that these students are producing truckloads of revenue for the university and should see some of the fruits of their labor.” (Jennings, par. 2) Because athletes aren’t paid for producing such money, supporters feel some of the money made should go towards helping with extra expenses. An average student athlete has to pay for phone bills, transportation, entertainment, laundry, toiletries and other things. While the typical college student has the opportunity to work, athletes don’t. Some students in college receive academic full ride scholarships, which are the same as athletic full rides, but they have time to earn extra money on the side. If these students are receiving a full ride scholarship and have the opportunity to work then an athlete should be paid a compensation for his or her efforts on the playing field.

The NCAA used to make a college football video games by school's athletes, however, they evaded to pay royalties to athletes by not disclose the name of athletes. It is not fair for the football players that NCAA took away their money. The author believes that the solution is to negotiate with the NCAA, even if, NCAA not allowed players to unionize, players still should negotiate to get enough scholarships. And he said that students need to benefit from their names and portraits, and athletes should be allowed to sign agency agreements with advertising agencies to make money with their image. An Associate Professor of Law at the Zicklin School of Business－Marc Edelman agreed with LaBlue’s opinion. In the article “Should College Athletes Be Allowed to unionize?” reported by the wall street journal states that Edelman argues players are employees and should to certain their rights. He summed up the benefits that unions can bring to athletes, and through unionization the control rights of the college sports can back to hands of students. For example, athletes have been lacking of insurance and disability benefits in matches during long time, however, the union can help these athletes improve their health care insurance and pensions. Before the athlete is punished, union can protected them by holding a hearing. The author stated, “At some colleges, men's basketball players are required to miss upward 20% of their spring-semester class days for athletic purposes,” many student athletes are deprived of the right of choose their own life, the University will replace them to decide class, study plan and schedules. many student athletes are deprived of the right of choose their own life, the University will replace them to decide class, study plan and schedules. Union can give them the freedom to

Every year, thousands of student athletes across the world sign the NCAA’s 08-3A Form, also called the “Student-Athlete” form, which waives their right to receive money for the use of their name and image. Like many of us in this class, these college athletes devote their time to their academics while spending additional hours with training and practices throughout the day and receive no stipend in return. This 08-3A form defines college athletes as amateurs, who cannot receive payment for playing their desired sport. While their schools and coaches may make millions of dollars in salaries and endorsement deals and are the highest-paid public employees in many states due to their performances in their desired sport, these “amateurs” can never

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

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

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.

Abstract:  Collegiate athletes participating in the two revenue sports (football, men's basketball) sacrifice their time, education, and risk physical harm for their respected programs. The players are controlled by a governing body (NCAA) that dictates when they can show up to work, and when they cannot show up for work. They are restricted from making any substantial financial gains outside of their sports arena. These athletes receive no compensation for their efforts, while others prosper from their abilities. The athletes participating in the two revenue sports of college athletics, football and men's basketball should be compensated for their time, dedication, and work put forth in their respected sports.

Currently, a number of student athletes are of the opinion that they should receive additional monetary compensation for two reasons. First, they argue that due to their rigorous and demanding schedules they are unable to hold jobs to receive an income. Secondly, that they should receive payment because of the amount of revenue they bring into the university; whether that is through jersey sales, video game sales, or being a high profile athlete that increases ticket sales and exposure of the university. This is mainly referring to football and men’s basketball. The NCAA bylaw 12.5.2.1, forbids “the use of his or her name or picture to advertise, recommend or promote directly the sale or use of a commercial product or service of any kind” (Clevens, 2013, Vol. 143, No. 4). “It would be unfair to other students if the university paid athletes to play college sports, although many may disagree. Scholarships

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.

With its adoption of the amateur code in 1956, college athletes are known first as students then as athletes (Majerol). In the past year, however, two cases have come up that threaten the amateur code. The first case was in April of 2014 when the Northwestern football team appealed to the Nation Labor Relations Board for the right to unionize. They argued that they met the standards of being an “employee” of the university because they spend 50 to 60 hours of football-related work per week during August training camp, 40 to 50 hours per week during the regular season, 15 to 20 hours per week during the offseason, 20 to 25 hours per week during spring practice, and they are constantly under strict schedules and monitoring. Due to these reasons, the NLRB has declared the football team as employees of the university (Vint). Four months later, Claudia Wilken, a U.S district judge, ruled that players whose images are used in video games or TV broadcasts should have a part of the revenue from media contracts put into a trust fund that can be collected once the athlete graduates (“Judge Rules Against NCAA”). With these new decisions, the debate on whether or not college athletes should be paid has

A former basketball player sued the NCAA for antitrust law violations. Edward Abandon a former basketball player at UCLA decided to be the main Plaintiff after seeing his self in a video game without his permission.O'bannon argued the NCAA violated the anti trust laws and also his privacy. In 2013 Judge Claudia Wilkins found in favor of O'bannon saying that they violated the Sherman anti trust laws. Two years later in 2015 the ruling was appealed and reversed, the NCAA stated to preserve the character and quality of the ‘product, athletes must not be paid. Last year O'bannon tried to appeal to supreme court but was denied, but didn't walk away emptied handed he settled with 40 million from EA sports. But still the NCAA walks away with no pay for play, this is an unjust law if give ever seen one. I know you've heard the saying "fool me once shame on me but you wont fool me again". Well this is another instance in which the NCAA violated the Anti trust laws and got away in 2014 when Former West Virginia running back Shawne Alston filed a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging that the NCAA "violated antitrust laws by agreeing to cap the value of athletic scholarships below the actual cost of attending school and 'far below' what the free market would produce," Basically the NCAA was only providing a partial scholarship to this athlete and having him pay the rest of the tuition out his pocket while they're making 10 times the revenue of his tuition off of his name. Three years later this year one of the most recent actions in the Shawn Alston cases the NCAA settled and payed out 208.7 million dollars for the cost of attendance. The NCAA and conferences only settled this case because the terms are consistent with Division I financial aid rules, which allow athletics based pay up to the full cost of obtaining a college education. Lead attorney in the case Steve Berman said in a

Common law has three tests: (1) the right of others to control a person 's activities; (2) whether that person is compensated; and (3) if that person is economically dependent on that compensation. The law professors find that college athletes meet all three because a coach has much control over what they do, an athletic scholarship amounts to compensation and players depend on those funds for food and shelter as well as schooling. In their analysis of the Brown University decision, the McCormick’s conclude the status of athletes differs from graduate assistants '. The professors say athletes are not primarily engaged in learning, play sports unrelated to their course of study and fall under the supervision of coaches rather than faculty members. The McCormick’s dispute the NLRB 's finding on the fourth test, which has to do with compensation. In their judgment, young men playing major football and basketball are not there primarily for an education. They 're primarily there to win football games and basketball games and perform well. (Cox, Mathews)

O’Bannon argued that he and other past NCAA players deserve money due to the NCAA playing past games which they had played in and generated money through it. O’Bannon suggested that a form of royalty was necessary as it technically fulfilled the requirements. Also O’Bannon argued that, because of the NCAA using their “avatars” in their games they should be given compensation, but the NCAA argued that they were not the same person, even though they were visually identical. Due to the NCAA making money off of their past performances in the games it was argued that they should be paying money to the previous athletes for compensation. While current student athletes are obviously reimbursed with a multitude of benefits former athletes are given no revenue the moment they leave. O’Bannon thought this to be unfair which led him to accuse the NCAA. This case is a good example of legal formation as each perspective was challenged on the basis of the laws themselves. However this specific case was dropped, it has inspired new conflicts like “Should College/University athletes be paid

“Imagine that you worked a 40-hour per week job where you didn’t get paid, but you had to pay $3,000 a year!” In the article, “The Myth of Amateur Athletics”, this quote is being compared to the amount of training, practicing, and competing most full ride college athletes obtain each week. While maintaining good grades, continuing to give 100% training/during games, college athletes don’t need any added stress. Added stress such as finding a job to pay for the extra $3,000 they have to pay to go to college.

Other themes that are pro-compensation include redefining amateurism and worker’s compensation and liability issues. The fourth stream of literature focuses on various reasons that intercollegiate athletes should not be paid to play, mostly viewpoints that consider the use of the Sherman Act within intercollegiate athletics to be judicial overreach.