With March Madness officially coming to an end last night, fans all over the nation have been watching players pour their blood, sweat and tears into building the reputation for their respective schools. This year’s NCAA Tournament has been one of the most entertaining we’ve seen in recent years, and with every game being televised, the amount of revenue generated was through the roof. USA Today mentioned that this year’s Tournament will generate more than $771 million dollars in television rights alone.
Sure there are a lot of people who play a role in putting together one of the biggest, if not the biggest, annual event in sports, but who is really responsible for bringing in the big bucks? Obviously, it’s the players. Fans buy tickets, and tune into the games on television to see the players play, so why don’t they get any of the money generated from ticket sales or television contracts? Most of them receive a free education, as well as other benefits, but they don’t come close to equaling what the athletes generate in revenue for their schools.
Recently, the controversial argument about whether or not players deserve to get paid for their services has been getting more and more attention. It seems that the harder players seem to play, the more people start to realize how unfair the system really is.
The NCAA has several reasons for not agreeing with the idea of athletes getting paid, most of them tying to the desire to preserve the amateur status of the athlete. Those that are against the NCAA paying collegiate athletes think that it will tarnish the NCAA’s standards of integrity and professionalize the game, which to me seems as nothing more than a petty excuse for them to be greedy.
“NCAA talking about integrity,” Jay Bilas tweeted on March 31. “That’s good, but NCAA singing that same song since 1905. No difference in integrity level, just more money.”
Since 1965, the NCAA has increased its revenue by 8000 percent, so why not share some of that with the players?
According to the NCAA bylaws (Section 2, Title V), “It is a violation of NCAA rules for athletes to accept money or gifts while intending to remain eligible.” But where do you draw the line? The NCAA is so strict in maintaining these rules, and place tough consequences upon those who choose to “violate” the rules. Which of course as a result, forces players, boosters and alumni to be top secret just to get players an extra meal here or there or a few dollars to buy some extra groceries.
Did the NCAA really have to cut all ties with Chris Webber for receiving a few benefits from local caretaker Ed Martin as a collegiate athlete? Along with his other four freshman teammates, Webber brought Michigan Basketball a level of attention it had never before come close to reaching. They revolutionized college basketball altogether, increasing merchandise sales from $1.5 million a year to over $10 million a year. Without them, that extra $9 million isn’t made. Neither is the amount of television dollars that they generated. It would be one thing for the NCAA to realize that, and let Webber get away with receiving the little benefits he was getting here and there, but instead, they exploited him for his worth, and erased his entire college basketball career. If you ask me, the NCAA tarnished it’s own status of integrity right there.
*** *** ***
Those against the NCAA paying it’s athletes often argue that a full scholarship is more than enough to compensate for the player’s services, however that argument is also another poor excuse for them to be greedy. USA Today did the research, and accounted that the value of a men’s basketball scholarship adds up to about $120,000. Now compare that $120,000 to the $120 million or so that a student can help make for his school, and tell me if that’s an equitable tradeoff.
First of all, a scholarship can be revoked at any time. The school basically gives the athlete four, one-year contracts in which they hold them to a large amount of standards and expectations that many of them struggle to maintain. So the players aren’t guaranteed anything. Also, mind you, every scholarship isn’t a full scholarship, so the partial scholarship athletes still have to pay for their education. It would be one thing if every player on the team got a full scholarship, but that’s not even the case.
Then there are players who don’t get any scholarship at all. They put in the same amount of time and effort as the full scholarship players, yet they get next to nothing in return. So aside from the opportunity to earn a free education – which don’t get me wrong, is a great opportunity for those that actually need it – what does an athlete really receive with his scholarship? Things like priority scheduling, excused absences and other benefits of non-monetary value, which are great perks and all, but not exactly luxurious advantages. Most of the time, the athletes on full scholarships end up leaving school early to become professional players in the long run, so the opportunity to earn a free education isn’t as enticing as it appears.
If you take away the education factor, a scholarship’s value isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. It’s almost like a club owner asking an A-list celebrity like Kanye West to perform at his venue, promising him that everything he needs while he’s there will be free – wardrobe, equipment, food, drinks, etc. But once his services are complete, he doesn’t get even the slightest portion of the revenue that he helped you generate. Does that seem like a fair agreement? Absolutely not, and college basketball players are held hostage under those circumstances.
Many people want to talk about how bad college ballers going one-and-done is for the game, but they don’t take into account the unfair circumstances that they are held to. Why in the world would a Derrick Rose or Kevin Durant stay in school for an extra three years? For one, they aren’t going to need that college degree anytime soon, so why sacrifice your physical talent at the expense of earning money for a university when you don’t even get the slightest percentage of what you’re really playing for – especially when you can go to the NBA after one season and get what you really deserve. For any high caliber player like Rose or Durant, the value of a full scholarship is very little.
The NCAA uses the opportunity of a free or reduced education to lure families into thinking that their sons will have it made in college just because they’re on a scholarship, when frankly it’s the exact opposite. Put yourself in the shoes of a talented inner-city youth, whose life is basketball and basketball only. Frankly, your education isn’t really at the top of your list of priorities. You’re just concerned with making it to the NBA, so you can get paid to play.
When you’re in high school, you have the support of your parents behind you. You eat home cooked meals, you get to go school shopping at your parents’ expense, and most importantly, you get the free time to hold at least a part-time job to put some money in your pocket on top of what your parents already support you with. Now, you go to play at a major university, and all those luxuries, including your free time, are gone. You now have to practice three times a day, and no longer have time to work that part-time job to put that extra check in you bank account. Your scholarship does not cover your transportation, phone bill, entertainment, or put food in your refrigerator. You are forced to commit to maintaining the requirements of your four, one-year contracts (GPA, practice, attendance, etc.) so your freedom is limited. In the meantime, you’re slaving away at 4 a.m. practices to help sell tickets and television rights for your school, yet you don’t even see the least bit of that money. They sell your jersey in the campus bookstore, yet you aren’t allowed to receive any compensation from that at all. What sense does that make? A fan buys a jersey because they like the player, so why can’t the player receive anything in return? It’s blasphemy. Why should an athlete be satisfied with the value of his scholarship, when he knows that he plays a significant role in making millions on top of millions for his school, and doesn’t see a fraction of that money?
Also, I would like to make the point that athletes are not like every other student. The NCAA strictly holds athletes to their amateur title, which is unique to every other student in the schools. Other specialty students are not prohibited from profiting on the open market, while athletes are. Other students can earn scholarships for their talents, as well as the freedom to benefit from those talents and earn money in an open market. Music students that play in the school band can go out and get paid for a gig; drama students can go out and perform for money; cheerleaders, dancers and gymnasts can go out and work as instructors to make an extra buck. But the athlete can’t. How is that fair?
*** *** ***
If you were to compare the NCAA to your everyday business model, it’s clear to see that it would be just about as corrupt as a business can get. The owners of the business get paid large sums of money, the top-level management gets paid large sums of money, yet the workers who are actually performing the physical labor and doing the actual job don’t get paid. When have you ever heard of a business that doesn’t pay its employees? Why are coaches allowed to obtain endorsements and get paid millions while the athlete is not? It’s ironic that the winning coaches who make millions (Coach K, Pitino, Calipari) usually win because of the caliber of their players, and their players get nothing. If it were an actual business, nobody would work under such unfair circumstances.
Athletes do gain plenty from playing the game of basketball on the collegiate level. It isn’t all about the money. Players do gain experience and a better understanding of the game. But the amount of extra money that the NCAA is brining in year after year keeps increasing, and it has now become almost insane of the NCAA to not share at least a portion of it with it’s players. USA Today mentioned that the NCAA President Mark Emmert is convinced that the NCAA will most likely never budge on their current principles. He was quoted as saying, “It is grossly unacceptable and inappropriate to pay players… converting them from students to employees.” But isn’t employees what they already are, seeing as how they work to make millions of dollars for an organization? Despite the unlikeliness of a change, Emmert has committed to bringing up the topic in the NCAA board meetings in April, however that still isn’t saying much.
Athletes are authentic amateurs up until they enter the Division I collegiate ranks. In high school, athletes are playing simply for the opportunity to better themselves as players and earn more exposure on a national level. The game is innocent on the high school and AAU ranks, because the athlete is playing to improve his stock as a player. So with that said, why can’t the collegiate level be where athletes turn into professionals? They have the responsibilities of a professional, and are held accountable for bringing in millions, so why can’t they profit from their own image and likeness, hire agents and be allowed the freedom to market themselves as college superstars?
I really don’t understand why the NCAA places such emphasis on the amateur status of players. If NBA players can play professionally, earn money and work towards a degree at the same time, what is stopping them from letting collegiate athletes earn money too? It’s clear to see that something needs to be done. Pay the players. It’s only right.
What do you think? Should NCAA athletes get paid?
Follow Jaimie on Twitter at @SubZEROxPaste.
Follow Dime on Twitter at @DimeMag.
Become a fan of Dime Magazine on Facebook HERE.