I'm going to write about our second starting point option, what happened in the world, conflict-wise, today.
Today, the NFL football season kicked off once again. The NFL is the biggest sports organization (or at least the most lucrative) in the United States today. In this blog post I wanted to get some perspectives on our cohort's thoughts regarding a lot of "hot" issues facing the world of sports today. One particular topic that has been at the center of a lot of contention this summer is the NCAA's treatment of athletes. Namely:
The Current Pressures on the NCAA
·
O’Bannon lawsuit to give players their image rights
·
Large schools/conferences realize they have more power than NCAA
·
Athletes want to be paid
·
Revenue sports vs. non-revenue sports
· "Amateurism" in the present day
·
Small schools want protection from big schools
I felt like these each provide a jumping off point for discussion. In that vein, I think that college athletes should have a seat at the table, and should have an opportunity to air their grievances to the "powers that be" that both make exorbitant sums of money off the backs of students and dictate all that these student-athletes can do while in school. It really is not in any way fair that students are doing so much work for football coaches making millions of dollars, and they do not see anything other than exposure and a little bit of apparel perks.
I don't have all, or any of, the answers, but I'd love to get one or more person's take on any of these above topics. I know I started with the NFL season beginning today, and so there's a lot to talk about there too. That league creates a lot of conflict on the field, and off.
Finally, someone who will talk sports with me!
ReplyDeleteI believe that this is a very hot button issue as someone who works with athletics because it is easy to sympathize with a student who is dependent on the university to sustain themselves while going to school and maintaining sufficient grades to compete while on the flip side watching the university turn millions of dollars of the likeness and image of the student athletes playing is definitely a little inflammatory.
I believe that the profits turned off of the likeness of the NCAA student athletes is pretty tricky to address. As someone who works with athletics posting on a site that is technically public, I have to say that these are my own fabricated opinions and do not necessarily reflect anyone else's.
If a student athlete is given a full ride scholarship, their tuition and living expenses are paid for which can range from $80,000 to $120,000 for four years at an institution including their summer curriculum that most are encouraged to take to lighten the load for their actual in-season course load. To an extent, they are selling their professional identity for amateur experience that will gain them game-time experience and a history of competing at a high level among other talented athletes in hopes of opening doors for their professional career which they mortgage away for at least 3 years. If their stipend and living expenses are their paramount concern, that seems more like a compliance issue for the school who underestimated the cost of living for a student athlete. Yes, scholarships are expensive, but cutting corners to bolster profits is only going to perpetuate problems and bad behaviors. Rather than leaving the student athletes susceptible to infringing the rules of accepting benefits from outside benefactors ( who may or may not have athletic interests), I personally think that it is the responsibility of the school to accommodate the realistic living expenses of their student athletes. Wether that requires siphoning the funds from the revenues from the marketing of likeness or the high profile television contracts of the big name sports, the university needs to better adjust; which is what these newly formed student unions are attempting to collectively bargain for. I do not believe that this burden is bestowed upon the NCAA because every school's budget is different and I am not familiar with the cut the NCAA takes from each major division school, but the burden falls upon the school and their
Partly, I believe that these student athletes are blown up to such a super star level that their materialistic expectations grow as their fame grows. As they are flown to 4-5 star hotels and given meal per-diems they begin to expect more of their surroundings and lose sight of the fact that they are still college-students and their new pair of status symbol Air Jordan's are not the most efficient use of a large fraction of their monthly stipend.
I just think that the universities and athletes are both tied up in a situation where they want to have their cake and eat it too. Whether that be the universities having free athletes who bring attention to the university and then make money off of merchandising their likeness or for the student athletes who want to make money but also receive the education, transportation, and living expenses that they are entitled to. In this scenario both parties are taking the cake from each other's mouth and neither party wants to budge to split that piece of cake accordingly. I am interested to see how these events transpire as student athletes are moving to unionize. I wonder how long it will take until they realize how much of the bill is footed for them, and if that is really a battle that they want to start slugging out once it becomes a true numbers game.
This is an interesting conflict because of how many variables have to be addressed. First, the issue that I hear argued the most is that students should not be paid because they are students. They should be going to school to educate themselves, not make money. I am not sure if I agree with that. If coaches and schools make so much money off of athletes destroying their bodies, than the athletes should at least be getting a free education. The universities don't want to ruin their image either though. They do not want to just become a school that has paid athletes. It would cause people to question the pressures put on professors to pass athletes even more. However, student workers are paid and no one has an issue with that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nolan that as the athletes get more fame they also get more expectant of people giving them recognition.
My thing is, if they are so great at football, and want to be paid for it, why aren't they playing in the NFL or other paid football league instead of going to school?
Yes, a topic that I can relate to! I agree that athletes should be paid. But I'm not saying that Universities should pay athletes $10,000 or even $50,000 per semester. But what if each athlete got paid $2,000 over the course of a semester? This would give them some spending cash and an opportunity to start managing their money. Most athletic programs can't afford to pay athletes on their own, so the NCAA and their executives need to figure out a way to start compensating their golden geese. Athletes earn their schools hundreds of thousands of dollars, increase enrollment, and if they do well, provide a recruiting piece for generations. Top NCAA executives are getting $1 million per year while an athlete can't earn $50 from signing a few autographs.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great starting point Tom. I want to say I agree with most of what Nolan talked about. I want to add in a slightly different perspective. It's a combination of two of your topics: athletes want to be paid and revenue sports vs. non-revenue sports.
ReplyDeleteI've had this debate many times in the past year and my one comment that always seems to stop male sports fans (sorry for the put down to males, never had a female do this) is to mention how paying athletes would effect female athletes. It's a sad but true fact that most women's college sports teams are non-revenue sports. Most women's programs are in place to fulfill Title IX by leveling out the money taken in by large football or basketball programs. It's my personal belief that many of these teams wouldn't exist without Title IX.
While having the debate over whether to pay athletes I've yet to encounter anyone who has a solution to the female athlete "problem." No one seems to have an answer to how to distribute pay amongst those on the same team (starters vs. fifth string) let alone have an answer to how to pay female athletes in a non-revenue sport. I don't have the answer to this.
I do offer this situation though. Consider some of these large women's basketball programs: Stanford, Tennessee, Baylor, UConn, etc. Or what about a smaller program like Gonzaga that would routinely sell out Tuesday night games. Do these successful, revenue earning programs have to pay for unsuccessful, non-revenue earning male sports? As I said I don't have the answer. And no one seems to be willing to look past the football field in order to see the talent female athletes on the sidelines. Until someone can answer the female athlete "problem" for me, I don't support paying NCAA athletes.
Also one last thought. What about athletes like Missy Franklin who is a world class Olympic athlete but refuses to take endorsements in order to swim at Cal?