Umass Football Case Analysis

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 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

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

For over a century, college athletics have thrilled generations of fans; from alumni gathered in stadiums to armchair quarterbacks, the fervor of team loyalty reaches spiritual proportions. This popularity is evident from the gigantic economy college athletics have created, with the NCAA raking in nearly eleven billion dollars last year (Edelman 7). A problem overlooked in spite of this boom is the exploitation of the people who make this venture so profitable: the players. Although it has not always been the case, the majority of players now are grossly undercompensated for contributions to their alma maters, the sport, and the burgeoning economy created by the two. College athletes are exploited when universities refuse to acknowledge

Tulsa’s on the other hand, was $31 million” (Sack). Bigger schools bring in more money than other small schools because they have a bigger fan base. So, bigger schools have an advantage over smaller schools because they have more money to pay their players. Unfortunately, if the NCAA makes every school pay a $2000 stipend, then the smaller schools would be in trouble. Smaller schools don’t bring in as much revenue as big schools.

College athletics is a big time money maker for universities. Universities sell memorabilia, tickets to games, and great tailgating gear. The games are also aired on television were millions of people watch. Universities bring in tons of revenue every year, but where does it go? Not to the stars of the show. Athletes work hard to make their schools proud, but work so hard on their athletic skills; they have no time to actually work for extra money. Because college athletes have no time to support themselves, the school they attend should provide additional funding.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, or so they say. In this case the phrase holds true, as it would be foolish to change a wildly successful college athletics system. Currently, athletes are able to earn their degree for free, while playing the sport they love, in a harmonious reltionship between amatuer athlete and college sports. Nonetheless, critics call for colleges to pay athletes a portion of the profits generated off of their services even though college athletes are already paid in the form of scholarships, free housing and other benefits. Furthermore, changes, such as sharing profits with student athletes could ruin a system that sucessfully supplies us with the ameteur sports that we love, while providing athletes with a free college education.

Many people are not aware that most athletic departments actually lose money year after year trying to fund programs. Based on the NCAA’s revenue and distribution information chart, “Out of the 120 FBS (formerly named Division 1) schools, only twelve broke even or made a profit last year.” The other divisions like II-A teams do not even earn as much money in revenue, so not very much can be distributed. Revenue from colleges only benefits some schools.

Most of us should be aware of college athletics’ plight. Over the past few years student athletes have gotten huge recognition. There is a controversy whether these athletes should or should not be paid. Even though they make a substantial contribution to their school, these student athletes are not paid by the university. In some cases they are the reason for increasing the College’s reputation. In addition, these athletes increase the profits of the university, therefore these athletes should receive a part of the profits. First and foremost, universities use these athletes as core marketers, also such student athletes’ training sessions are comparable to a full-time job, and they worked hard to get there.

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

College student-athletes are amateurs and should be treated as such. Playing in the NCAA as an athlete means that you are an amateur and not a professional. “Students are not professional athletes who are paid salaries and incentives for a career in sports. They are students receiving access to a college education through their participation in sports, for which they earn scholarships to pay tuition, fees, room and board and other allowable expenses.” (Mitchell). These athletic programs allow the players to continue playing the sports they love at a higher level while receiving a higher education as well. College sports would turn into a bidding war, create a “free agency” and ruin the overall idea of amateurism that the NCAA was founded on if salaries were involved. Larger schools that make more revenue or have more money to offer could easily persuade the top recruits to come and play for them. This would create a bidding war and a certain type of “free agency” that is foreign to the NCAA because the idea of being an amateur

Ever since its formation in 1910, the National Collegiate Athletic Association or NCAA, has provided student athletes the ability to attend colleges through scholarships while playing for their schools. However, the ideology of inter-collegiate athletics, amateurism, and sportsmanship masks the troubling problem for many of the players; the ban on paying student athletes. The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a 6 billion dollar a year institution that is a so-called, “non-profit organization.” While they claim to provide athletes a gateway to a higher education, their inability to provide any compensation for their hard work and sacrifices make them incredibly exploitative. It is

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is a multibillion-dollar industry that has the excitement of fans, attention from the medias, million dollar coaches, and slave-working athletes. It became a bigger business in the last decades of the 20th century drawing broadcast networks, cable networks, commercial endorsement deals, and fans. However, the heart and soul of this business are the student-athletes. Players earn millions to billions of dollars for schools and private companies but must cheat their ways through academics because of demanding schedules, uttering responsibilities, lacking sleep, and screeching injuries. The institutions of athletic scholarships confirmed competitive sports over academics for many players. The school employees earn scholarships that pay for tuition and dorm rooms but fall short of the total cost of attending school. Athletic scholarships are given out once a year, so promises of a full ride is thin. While athletes are contributing, the schools are making. The unjust approach athletes deal to play the sport he or she loves to become an employee of a school and a prize of wage. Athletes created a movement demanding more compensation and better treatment, because they are tired of broken promises by the slow pace system. Although critics believe athletes are exploiting, supporters believe scholars should receive a sufficient reimbursement because the load of debt, unfair treatment, health issues, corruption, and

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.

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