The National Collegiate Athletic Association

In his article “The Shame of College Sports,” Taylor Branch (2011) describes how universities are focused on advancing and receiving money from major athletics and having star athletes, but how the universities are not caring for the “student athlete.” The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has made college sports into an unmerited business. However, as years progress more athletes are getting smart and are taking the NCAA to court. The more students that challenges the rules by the NCAA and take them to court, the secrets and undermining values of the NCAA come out and the closer the NCAA comes to an end.

One of the biggest challenges paying college athletes is the legal power of the term student-athlete. When President Roosevelt created the NCAA to protect young athletes, he also emphasized that the NCAA would “serve a secondary purpose in ensuring ―no student shall represent a college or university in any intercollegiate game . .

“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 NCAA was founded in 1906 and in its own words their duty was “To protect young people from the dangerous and exploitive athletics practices of the time,” but today the NCAA helps foster an environment that thrives off of doing exactly what they sought to stop. Today college athletes have their likeness used by the NCAA and the schools they attend for profit but do not receive any of the money they help to bring in. The NCAA also uses outdated rules that no longer help college athletes but instead harm them. One of the most glaring and criticized rules is that college athletes are amateurs and therefore must not benefit monetarily off of their talents and fame.

(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.

Originally the NCAA was established to address and rectify safety issues involving college sports, primarily football. However, since its creation the NCAA has developed to become the largest amateur athletic organization in the United States. Surely this rapid growth of the NCAA was unprecedented, and now they find themselves responsible for merely everything when it comes to dealing with college athletics. Safety used to be the main concern of the NCAA, and now it seems revenue distribution takes precedent in today’s NCAA. Also by being the main shareholders for

The question of whether the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association (PIAA) should separate public and private schools into their own divisions has been a topic of discussion for years. As a product of 14 years of Catholic education, I was fortunate enough to be able to participate in athletics during my high school career. Many of the teams that we played were public school teams from small communities where athletics were almost more important than an education. Unfortunately, I have witnessed firsthand the animosity that has surfaced between public and private schools.

In 2012, the NCAA earned $871.6 million in revenue (Dirlam), but it is never distributed to the workforce. As it stands, the NCAA forbids college athletes from earning any compensation from participation in college athletics. Scandals surrounding high-profile college football stars who accepted payment for providing autographs have brought to light what is wrong with NCAA policy. Athletes from college football and men’s basketball deserve a piece of the $871.6 million revenue pie. These sports athletes occupy a different role on campus, the role of an employee as well as a student that female and other male athletes do not. Paying athletes’ a full salary for their participation is an extreme solution. Instead, the NCAA can solve the

A keener analysis of this case would reveal the likelihood of the existence of the NCAA being towed apart (D'Alessandro, 2013). In his suit, O'Bannon reveals the fact that in 2009 the NCAA expected to reap huge profits in by using his UCLA likeness on a college basketball video game yet the real talents generating the profits both on the field and on the court and in licensed products him includes are in no way going to be compensated (D'Alessandro, 2013). Not only this for there are many sources of the negative criticism of the Association such as the lucrative advertisement deals signed by the NCAA case in point the deal with ESPN of approximately 450 million dollar for the televising rights to broadcast the playoffs of the college football and the major

In the past few years, there has been much talk about the unionization of collegiate sports. College athletes believe that they deserve more than just scholarships to compensate their contribution. College athletes are voicing that they should be able to form a union, and thus be paid for their athletic contributions to universities and to the NCAA. However, before one can decide whether or not unionizing collegiate sports is the right or wrong approach to solving such issues, we must first review the history of collegiate sport regulation organization and examine the pros and cons of unionization.

There has been amplified debate on the treatment, education, training of the college athlete. To avoid exploitation of athletes, “The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), formed in 1905, set bylaws requiring college student-athletes to be amateurs in order to be eligible for intercollegiate athletics competition” (Schneider n.p.). Intercollegiate athletics have dramatically changed over the last several decades. Currently, intercollegiate athletics generate tremendous amounts of revenue, remarkably in football and basketball. College sports in America is a

The first thing college athletes sign when they commit to a university is sign a contract. In this contract, the athletes sign over their privacy rights under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). FERPA serves to protect the privacy of an individual’s educational records as well as any personal information help by the university or institution they are attending. The academic standings of athletes are too often given out to the public. The names of the athletes are being used by large corporations without their consent for the company’s own personal growth. The medical records of the athlete are protected under FERPA instead of HIPPA, which allows for more individuals access to. Also, academic advisors are obligated

Everyone values privacy differently; some are happy to appreciate attention and are more open about their private life and welcomes public scrutiny without any hesitation. In Wainwright v Home Office , the House of Lords held that the English Law did not recognise a general tort of invasion to privacy. Campbell v MGN Ltd and Douglas v Hello Ltd are the two main cases, which took a step in recognising this area of law. In Campbell it was held that ‘where the invasion is caused by wrongful disclosure of personal information is a breach of privacy’. The consequences of these cases led the media to demand for a codified legislation on the law of privacy, as Baroness Hale commented in Wainwright, the almost non existence in this part of the law has led to people facing ‘gross invasion of their personal privacy’.

In today’s day and age where lines between the public life and private life have become increasingly blurred, right to privacy has gained importance and new dimensions.

The age old challenge of balancing the individuals’ right to privacy against the public interest in freedom of expression has resulted in conditions which have forced the hand of the judiciary. They are faced with the choice of recognising the tort of privacy or simply expanding the exisitng torts to cover the same ground. While the English courts have never created a true privacy tort, New Zealand has recently taken the step of accepting privacy as a free-standing tort in it’s own right.