Running head: NCAA STUDENT ATHLETE COMPENSATIONNCAA PAYING ATHLETES

The Paying of NCAA Student AthletesNCAA Student Athlete Compensation

Opposing Sides Fighting for a Fair Game

Caleb G. Morgan

Robert Morris University

Class

Date

Author Note

Caleb G. Morgan, Robert Morris University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Caleb G. Morgan, School

of Business, Robert Morris University, 1222 Newbury Highland, Bridgeville, PA,15017.

Contact: [email protected]
NCAA STUDENT ATHLETE COMPENSATIONNCAA PAYING ATHLETES
2

Abstract

This research paper goes in depth to find the different sides on compensatingexplores the

opposing sides of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) student athletes’

compensation debate. Multiple articles have different sides on how to handle the paying of the

student athletesInnumerable articles exist assert strong support for the varying sides and making

compelling arguments both for and against the concept of student athletes being paid. . Cameron

(2019) goes into detail ondetails how much the NCAA makes yearly off the athletes, using and

also uses players’ perspectives to reinforce help back up his information. On the other hand,

Demby (2018) gives a much different perspective, proposing the idea that if players would be

paid their lives would not be much better because they would be “Employees of the

University”.that if paid, student athletes would effectively become “employees of the university”

which would marginalize any potential enrichment to their lives. The evidence provided from the

scholarship portion of the NCAA.org article is a middle ground just providing theneutral,

providing the basic information knowledge needed required to understand this topic. Other

information presented throughout this paper will provideoffers insight into the beliefs that

information on why people believestudent athletes should or shouldn't get paid. This paper will

evaluate both sides of the spectrum from an unbiased perspective and give the information

needed to help study the topic of paying student athletes.

Keywords: NCAA, etc.

NCAA Student Athlete Compensation

Opposing Sides Fighting for a Fair Game

The Paying of NCAA Student Athletes

Since In 2009 the topic of paying student athletes compensation was thrusthas been

brought into the spotlight and has continued to beenbe hotly debated a conversation throughout

the sports world. While there are many people involved in this conversation there is nothing that

has changed due to the fact that this topic is split 50/50 between wanting to pay student-athletes

and not wanting to pay student athletes.Although the subject has received attention for years,

progress toward resolution is slow and those on either side of the debate remain divided. The

oOne view has usedasserts that student-athletes should not be paid due to them havingsince most

of their needs are items paid for by their respective universities, while regular college students

who don't play a university affiliated sport don't have thatreceive that support.

However, the other side is tcontends that college athletes should be compensated for the large

part they play in securing the due to them helping the NCAA’s bring in most of that 1 billion

dollar s in revenue yearly annual revenue (Cameron, 2019).

What does tThe NCAA defines ahe term “student-athlete” mean this day in age? The

simple answer isas a student who also participates in sports while also attending the affiliated

university. The NCAA agrees with this, however theyassociation also requires that the student

maintains a level of “amateurism”. Amateurism, as explained by the NCAA, roughly states that

a student cannot be paid, participate in professional tryouts or practices, or agree to be

represented by an agent (NCAA.org, 2017).

Throughout the last ten years many pro and collegiate players, coaches, and analysts have

disagreed with this rule, instead they believe believing that NCAAthe players in the NCAA
NCAA STUDENT ATHLETE COMPENSATIONNCAA PAYING ATHLETES
4

should be paid a salary. This argument has been toThe battle has been fought in court several

times and is still evolving to this day. While there are many reasons presented on why theoffered

supporting why players should be paid, there is also an equally balanced argument on as to why

they shouldn’t be.

Student athletes receive multiple numerous benefits that come along with the full ride

scholarship. On NCAA official website (NCAA.org, 2017) in the student athletes section it

breaks down everything you receive along with the free tuition. Room and Board is completely

paid for and the players are usually housed around their team facilities and also housed with

other teammates. Things such as food, books and course related materials are covered in the full

ride scholarships. What many people argue about is the other things that a student athlete might

need, items such as clothes, gas money, etc. Many athletes make this argument because they do

not have time to make money themselves and when they try they end up getting in trouble by the

NCAA’s strict policy that a student-athlete can not make money while affiliated with the

university.

The argument in support of paying players really gained a lot of support when former

NCAA athlete Ed O’Bannon sued the NCAA (Demby, 2018). O’Bannon was playing a video

game and noticed a player who looked like him, wore the same number, and played for the same

team as he used to. He felt as though the NCAA used his likeness and did not compensate him

for this. Ultimately, it was decided that O’Bannon signed away the rights of his likeness to the

NCAA several years prior to the incident and that under the NCAA’s rules, he was owed no

compensation. This sparked a massive outcry from the community and placed the NCAA under a

lot of public scrutiny. The NCAA’s response to this had a major flaw. Many coaches and

analysts have stated that the payment of players would destroy the competitive balance in college
NCAA STUDENT ATHLETE COMPENSATIONNCAA PAYING ATHLETES
5

athletics. This would make higher end schools get more money while the lower ranked schools

would get little amounts of money, the bigger schools with more money would dominate the

market and they could almost guarantee a playoff run every year. While that argument has its

points the thing that many people have brought up was competitive balance is already messed up.

A sports economist for the Marquette Sports Law Review conducted some research and his

findings concluded, “In sport after sport, Peach found that a small collection of schools

dominated. It was not the same schools in each sport, but in each sport, there are a collection of

schools that appear to control the competition. In sum, college sports do not have competitive

balance” (Berri, 2016, p. 484). The imbalance in college athletics almost seems inevitable. With

the realization that the talent is not evenly distributed amongst all schools, why not pay the

players the money they earn?

Taking a step back from the actual competition side, the argument to pay players could

even be made by a purely statistical analysis. The NCAA records an average revenue of around

one billion dollars each year. With such a high revenue, the question of how in the world they

remain a non-profit organization becomes a very popular one. They do this by giving the money

they received back to the schools. The schools then use the money to create state-of-the-art

facilities or pay coaches. These facilities are known to attract high level recruits John Calipari,

the coach of Kentucky’s men’s Basketball team, was paid a total salary of a little over seven

million dollars (Benjamin, 2017, n.pag). A student who wrote on a similar topic had also looked

at some of Berri’s work and found a formula that allowed him to figure out how many wins each

player was responsible for along with how much each of those wins were worth. He then figured

out how much revenue each player brought in for their school. He used the 2012-2013 Indiana

University basketball team as a sample size. He compared each players calculated worth to thirty
NCAA STUDENT ATHLETE COMPENSATIONNCAA PAYING ATHLETES
6

thousand dollars, the cost of full tuition to the university. Nine of the players generated more

money than their scholarship was worth and seven of the nine were worth at least five times as

much. One player, Victor Oladipo, generated almost twenty-five times as much money as his

scholarship was worth (Jung, 2013, 5). Jung also describes the large television contracts granted

to the NCAA and explains why they are so profitable. He writes, “The television contracts are

enormous… There is a key reason to this phenomenon: advertising, and specifically free

advertising. For instance… last season alone, Johnny Maziel was worth $37 million in “media

exposure” (free advertising) for Texas A&M” (Jung, 2013, 3). Because the NCAA allows

networks to televise their games, their players gain a following. Johnny Manziel jerseys sold out

before the season even reached its midpoint. All of the money made off of his jerseys and other

merchandise went straight to the NCAA and he never got a dime.

To some players the scholarship appears to not even be worth it, they would rather be

compensated. However, if the NCAA decided that their players deserve compensation, a new

problem would arise. How would it work? As of now, nobody has been able to come up with a

method that would promote competitive balance as well as a fair pay scale for players, coaches,

and trainers alike.

Although it may appear that student-athletes should certainly be paid, it is important not

to forget the benefits they already receive. The players who would really benefit from being paid

are already getting full-ride scholarships to their respective institutions. They are granted the

opportunity to walk out of college with a position on a professional sports team, or a degree, or

both for free. They receive a scholarship other students could only dream of and all they have to

do is play the sport that they love. This is something that often goes underappreciated by the

athletes and the people that support paying them. They claim that between schoolwork, practices,
NCAA STUDENT ATHLETE COMPENSATIONNCAA PAYING ATHLETES
7

and workouts, they have no time and this prevents them from working a job. This is true,

however if the athletes were paid, then that sport becomes their job, one in which they are

overcompensated for they work they do.

A grown An adult working forty hours a week at one of those wages would be making

over one-hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year. Since this extremely high wage is only the

beginning of their seemingly unlimited benefits. They receive free healthcare in the form of

trainers and sports doctors. They are granted priority scheduling, free travel, free clothing, free

gym memberships, and even free gifts that can costs hundreds of dollars. (Paterno, 2011, n.pag)

They also receive benefits that cannot be calculated in monetary value. The most

important of which is the education they are receiving for free. Education is something that has

endless value and a profound effect on a fulfilling life. The free education is something that

should never be overlooked. Sadly, it frequently is. According to StudentLoanHero.com, the

total student debt in America is over $1.45 trillion, while the average student debt for a 2016

graduate has just surpassed $37,000 (2017). Division I student-athletes don't have to focus on

these issues. Something as important as education, the ability to be in a classroom, is enough

reason for other students to undertake such large debt, yet the athletes that argue for paychecks

often see the presence in a classroom only as a means to be on the field or court. A sports analyst

in Indianapolis reported about this. In part he wrote about a family, the Shippens, who underwent

$500,000 worth of student debt and of Jake Stevens, who went homeless because of his

enormous debt. He added, “Had the Shippens produced three quality point guards, their college

bill would be relative pocket change. If Stevens could only run and pass like Johnny Manziel, he

would have a place to sleep tonight” (Lopresti, 2014, n.pag). The players should understand that
NCAA STUDENT ATHLETE COMPENSATIONNCAA PAYING ATHLETES
8

paying them anything extra would be degrading to students like Stevens, who weren’t born with

a natural talent in Division-1 sports.

Even without looking at the athlete’s advantage over other students, there is still another

issue with paying players; how could the NCAA do it? A popular solution many have spoken

about is to be making college athletics become a free-market system. Similar to the way

professional teams can bid and bribe players, college institutions would be able to buy players

for their teams. One writer who supports this plan said, “If a free market system were introduced

at the collegiate level, wouldn’t the biggest, richest athletic departments simply buy all of the

best college athletes? The reality is that they already do. Only instead of attracting athletes with

cash, schools lure them with big-name coaches, five-star players-only dormitories, and

state-of-the-art athletic facilities” (Mahler, 2014, n.pag). One key issue with this plan is that the

universities would become second-rate. If players were paid, rather than athletic departments,

what motivates the school to maintain nice facilities and give these paid athletes certain things

instead of making the student-athlete pay for it themselves? They would sink tons of money into

the student’s contracts, rather than facilities that all enrolled students can use. That would

eventually lead to two distinct groups on campuses, the athletically-gifted wealthy and everyone

else.

The conversation of paying student-athletes will continue to grow as time goes on. While

those who cannot look past the money made by the schools, and coaches, argue that students

should be compensated for their services provided to the university; there are those who believe

the benefits of a sports scholarship are good enough to support the athlete will continue to

combat them. Clearly, there is no wrong answer as long as the NCAA can find a way to pay their

players without compromising each institutionsan institution’s athletic department or disrupting

the social balance on college campuses. Although both sides present a wildly compelling

argument, it appears that those opposing payment are winning. This is only evident by the

currently unchanging rules of the NCAA that are preventing the payment of their players. Whilst

this is the current state of the feud, the undying support of “pro-payment” activists could lead to

a change in the future.