In the last few years, one of the most contentious points surrounding the NCAA has been the debate over pay-for-play. Some athletes (both current and former) in significant revenue-generating sports, such as football and basketball, have called into question the legitimacy of the NCAA's strict amateurism policy. These athletes call for the allowance for college athletes to profit off of their athletic exploits. In recent weeks, the NCAA proposed a future rule change in which all athletes would be able to profit from their image and likeness.
There are many questions surrounding this topic. The central question in this debate is simple: Should college athletes retain full amateur status and, therefore, remain unpaid for their work? This is, however, a more multifaceted issue than what meets the eye. Even if they are allowed to earn profit, would they be paid a salary/stipend from schools or would they have to seek earnings elsewhere? Should systems be put in place to be able to strive for some level of equality in pay? Would there be restrictions on what types of earnings players can make? Will all of these factors be governed directly by the NCAA, or will individual schools have some leeway to make their own rules on the matter?
First, it is important to understand both sides of the initial argument. As it currently stands, all players at NCAA schools are seen as amateurs and, as such, are not permitted to profit in any way off of their own image and likeness. The argument for continuation of this model is as follows: athletes already benefit from competing for their schools. Most NCAA Division I and II schools offer athletic scholarships to athletes. For major Division I sports, like football and basketball, players typically receive full-cost athletic scholarships. While Division III schools do not offer athletic scholarships, they tend to offer some sort of financial aid to sweeten the deal and make attendance more possible for recruits. Proponents of the present amateurism model see this as adequate payment for the athletes' services to their schools.
Conversely, opponents see scholarship money as an incomplete form of compensation for athletes. They argue that "...big-time [athletics] and being seriously engaged in academics are not compatible" (Johnson/Acquaviva online). Year-round demands on high-level college athletes do not leave them sufficient time to operate as an average student does. They become athletes first and students second. As a result, scholarships are hardly an applicable method of payment, and athletes should be further recognized for the sacrifices that they are making.
In my opinion, college athletes should not necessarily be paid a direct salary or stipend from their universities. My main reason for this belief comes from a competitive perspective. Take Division I basketball, for example. There is, and always has been, an imbalance in competition. The best programs are miles ahead of the worst. And with each year of success, programs become all the more attractive to top recruits. If player stipends were universally implemented, historic "blue blood" programs would surely be able to offer more money to recruits, which would go further to perpetuate the competitive imbalance in the sport.
With that being said, I believe that it is categorically unfair to deny players the right to profit from their own image and likeness through third-party employers. I understand that paying players outright can be financially crippling for some schools and their athletic departments. However, schools make millions (if not billions) of dollars annually off of the performance of their student athletes, who, under the current letter of the law, cannot profit themselves.
There was an important story that broke just this year regarding this rule. The story seemed to fly somewhat under the radar, but it provides a glaring look at the dark side of the NCAA's amateurism policy. Trevor Lawrence, quarterback for the Clemson University football team and presumptive number-one pick in the 2021 NFL draft, launched a GoFundMe page in March in an attempt to raise money for families of coronavirus victims. Soon after the fundraiser began, Lawrence was forced to discontinue the page, as it violated NCAA rules regarding amateurism. The NCAA released a statement saying that it never asked Lawrence to stop the fundraiser, and in fact, this is true. It was Clemson's compliance department that forced the page's shutdown. But the entire job of the compliance department is to see that NCAA rules are being followed. If a player breaks any rule, amateurism rules included, the affiliated school is also at risk of punishment. Ultimately, it was still the NCAA's hyper-restrictive rules surrounding amateurism that led to the termination of the page. After facing some public backlash, Clemson and the NCAA jointly announced that they would make an exception to existing rules, and that Lawrence would be allowed to proceed with the GoFundMe page.
Trevor Lawrence is the most recognizable name and face in all of college sports, and by rule, he was not allowed to use his immense platform to support the most imminent relief effort in today's world. This is just one example of how the greedy NCAA has historically gone to extreme measures to make sure that it squeezes as much money as possible out of its athletes. But there is an innate level of hypocrisy to the NCAA's rules regarding amateurism. I, as a college student, could start a business or invent a product under my own name, and I could earn as much money from it and from my own personal brand as the free market dictates. But if Lawrence's story is any indication, a college athlete bound by the restraints of amateurism could not. The pending rule change recently approved by the NCAA is a necessary step in ensuring equitable reward for athletes.
Works Cited:
1. Johnson, D. A., & Acquaviva, J. (2012). Point/counterpoint: paying college athletes. The Sport Journal, 15(1). Retrieved from https://link-gale-com.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/apps/doc/A322563607/AONE?u=drexel_main&sid=AONE&xid=a88b4758
Comments