Examining Compensation Issues for College Athletes in an Evolving Sports Industry

Introduction

College sports have become an industry with a large fan base. For many years, as the industry has grown and total revenue has risen to a staggering eleven billion dollars (Mitchell & Edelman, 2013), a debate has become mainstream regarding student-athletes’ compensation. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has bylaws requiring all student-athletes to be amateurs to be qualified to participate in intercollegiate sports. This is to protect student-athletes from being exploited. These bylaws were set over a hundred years ago in 1905 (Schneider, 2001).

This debate has again risen to the media’s attention because of two interesting headline cases. In 2009 an antitrust lawsuit was filed against the NCAA due to the use of student-athletes images and names being used by video gaming companies with licenses from the NCAA (Mahler, 2014). The NCAA recently settled this lawsuit for twenty million dollars, to be paid to current and former athletes (Abrams, 2014). More recently, in March of 2014, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that student-athletes from Northwestern University were allowed to form a union to begin collective bargaining (Strauss & Eder, 2014).

People Also Read

• Top 100 Controversial Sports Topics
• 78 Sports Informative Speech Topics To Wow Your Audience
• Navigating Global Expansion: Strategic Marketing Insights for Wal-Mart

Thesis Statement

Student-Athletes are the foundation of an industry and should be compensated fairly and commensurate to the industry’s revenue.

Some Say Yes

Arian Foster, the Texan’s star running back, let it be known that he was getting paid money on the side illegally while playing college football. His reasoning for this was that he needed it. Arian Foster explained that sometimes he had to decide whether to buy food or pay his rent (Rosenberg, 2013). Too many college athletics fans seem unfair due to the industry revenue figure of eleven billion dollars. Five institutions’ athletics departments have annual revenue of one hundred million dollars or more (Mitchell & Edelman, 2013).

Most college athletes receive full-ride scholarships to attend their respective universities, but that scholarship program does not cover expenses. Many athletes have commitments of forty to fifty hours a week during the regular season and fifty to sixty hours a week during training camp (D’Aquila & Rudolph 2014). This large commitment can make it seemingly impossible for these athletes to earn any extra money to pay for expenses not covered by their scholarships, not to mention the time they need for class and studying.

Some Say No

The NCAA is very clear regarding its rules regarding the payment of student-athletes. The scholarships that student-athletes receive in exchange for their participation on an athletics team are the compensation they are entitled to. Many institutions are overlooked during this debate. There are many institutions in which the school subsidizes the athletics department. If the NCAA were to allow payment of student-athletes, most institutions would not have the funds to pay. Student-athletes are not professionals and only participate in sports in exchange for an education that can translate into a career (Mitchell & Edelman, 2013).

Money

It is no secret that the college sports industry has become an industry. This industry totalled eleven billion dollars, with ten institutions producing revenue streams of over fifty million dollars (Mitchell & Edelman, 2013). The NCAA is a nonprofit organization that cannot allow the payment of student-athletes because they would lose their status if they did (Schneider, 2001). While small in the picture, this issue can shed some light on the NCAA decision-making process regarding this debate. Having to pay taxes on the revenue produced could have major implications for the college sports industry and the institutions that participate.

Solution

Paying college athletes a monthly salary is not realistic and not achievable by most colleges. However, the essay proposes an all-inclusive compensation program for college athletes to solve the problem of not compensating college athletes. The all-inclusive compensation program as a solution to the problem has many dimensions and includes awarding free tuition, nutritional support, coaching, room, and physical trainers. This is an inclusive compensation program if its value exceeds $100,000 annually and is better than paying monthly salaries to college athletes, as argued (Cooper, 2011). The compensation program that will offer the solution will give the students free tuition, meal plans, rooms, and small amounts of money for their miscellaneous expenses. This small fee does not mean a salary. The program will include tutoring, academic counselling, nutritional advice, and life skill training. The proposed solution of the all-inclusive compensation program is more than pay for college athletes.

Advantages

The first advantage of the all-inclusive compensation program is that it is economical. Wood (2005) pointed out that in most cases, it is overlooked that student-athletes receive free strength and fitness training, professional coaching, and support from physical therapists and athletic trainers. When these services are compared to professional basketball and football players, it is estimated to be approximately $2000 to $3000 weekly (Harrison, 2004). When these valuations are added to scholarships, Cooper (2011) argued that a college athlete in a big conference school is likely to receive a package of about $50,000 to $125,000 annually.

The social and professional growth advantage of the all-inclusive compensation program is that it will make the college athletes gain publicity that is valuable to them compared to their monthly stipends. Furthermore, it is much easier for college teams’ athletes to make evaluations of their talents after talking to their college coaches whom they trust and watching their sports career. According to Wood (2005), this lowers the uncertainty of college athletes’ future performance. This also implies that they can get a bigger professional contract when they become pros, similar to some management studies. I am sad when reporting that the students’ experiences, the help from the coaches and publicity to the pro teams come along with large economic values and vary across different sports.

The equitable advantage of the solution is that every college athlete, regardless of the sports engaged, can get equitable access to the services offered by the school or the college for the athletes. According to Harrison (2004), typically, two to three sports make money for the colleges, including football and basketball, both for men and women, and are referred to as revenue sports. On the other hand, the remaining sports bring little or no revenue for the institution and cost the college money to be played. Because of that, most colleges’ athletic departments lose money. This means that if the colleges could adopt direct pay for the athletes as compensation, it would put financial pressure on the colleges to drop out of nonrevenue sports.  If the direct payment solution is adopted, the issue to be addressed is whether to pay college athletes equally. Of course, the students in nonrevenue sports already are getting more than the college gains. Therefore, the all-inclusive compensation program is the best.

Conclusion

As the debate rages on, many issues must be addressed because this is a complex argument with many factors to consider. Careful consideration must be given to a decision to change the status quo to ensure that the industry does not suffer, making it all for not. A decision to pay student-athletes leads to changes in the NCAA, pains for the institutions involved, and probably to the non-athlete who shares the history, views, and values and whose sign language is the first language. In Saudi Arabia, the students that attend these institutions are classified as follows. A decision to continue not paying the athletes infers that changes must be made to rules and scholarship programs to combat the stresses of commitments and everyday expenditures these athletes deal with. A decision can be made that will be both beneficial to the industry and to the foundational members, student-athletes, that give all fans the spectator sports they desire. An all-inclusive program that encompasses nutritional advice, free advice, a monthly stipend, professional coaching, and support is much more beneficial to college athletes than a monthly salary. The all-inclusive program is advantageous because it is economical, enhances the social and professional growth of student-athletes, and ensures equity among the athletes. That boosts the morale and growth of the students in different sports.

References

Mahler, J. (2014). College Athletes Should Be Paid Exactly This Much. Businessweek.Com, 1.

Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-02/how-much-should-college-athletes-get-paid

ROSENBERG, M., BECHTEL, M., & GORANT, J. (2013). Shell Game. Sports Illustrated,

119(13), 19.

Schneider, R. G. (2001). College student’s perceptions on the payment of intercollegiate students-

athletes. College academic standings relative to the suburban school. However, the conclusions of the study were not entirely negative. The researcher noted that the white and black Student Journal, 35(2), 232-240

Strauss, B. & Eder, S. (2014). College Players Granted Right to Form Union. New York Times

Online. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/sports/ncaafootball/national-labor-relations-board-rules-northwestern-players-are-employees-and-can-unionize.html?_r=0

D’Aquila, B., & Rudolph, M. (2014). NLRB Director Finds Scholarship Athletes are Employees.

Employee Relations Law Journal, 40(2), 37-44.

Abrams, A. (2014). NCAA To Pay Athletes $20 Million in Dispute Over Video Game Images.

Time.Com, 1. Retrieved from http://time.com/2849277/ncaa-video-game-settlement/

Mitchell, H., & Edelman, M. (2013). Should College Student-Athletes Be Paid? U.S. News

Digital Weekly, 5(52), 17.

Cooper, K. J. (June 01, 2011). Should College Athletes Be Paid to Play? Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, 28, 10, 12-13.

Wood, B. D. (2005). Compensating college athletes: NCAA Division I-A athletic directors’ and university presidents’ perceptions.

Harrison, T. M. (2004). Internal stakeholder perceptions of intercollegiate athletic reform: A focus group examination.

Herman Bailey

With a student-centered approach, I create engaging and informative blog posts that tackle relevant topics for students. My content aims to equip students with the knowledge and tools they need to succeed academically and beyond.