Due Compensation?

I’m going to be blunt – the NCAA, and collegiate athletics for that matter, is currently drowning in a cesspool of controversy.  Athletic departments from all over the country (e.g. Miami, USC, UNC, Ohio St., Auburn, Oregon, and various others) have been riddled with scandal and the media is screaming for reform. Sports news outlets (especially ESPN) are blaming the NCAA and are espousing that the unscrupulous behavior we are witnessing is somehow inherent, or even expected, within the faulty framework that is currently in place.  Consequently, the question of compensating college athletes has become a major, if not preeminent, topic for discussion and debate. 

            As with every convoluted issue, there are two polarized sides on both ends of the spectrum and both provide legitimate reasons for their position.  But, as with every convoluted issue, both sides obfuscate their weaknesses, unknowingly commit logical fallacies, and sometimes assail rather than inform.  Consequently, I have found faults with both positions in the compensation debate.  For clarity reasons, I will call one side the “Cartel Camp” (CC) and the other side the “They Already Get Paid Camp” (TAGPC).  I also want to stress that this question is specifically in regards to college football and basketball as they are the revenue-generators and are the ones where the flagrant cheating is taking place. 

            The CC believes that the NCAA is exploiting college athletes, violating the Sherman Act, and is, in effect, running a monopsony – or when there is only one buyer in the market.   Now I know you are thinking, “But these athletes are celebrities on campus, they are essentially living the dream, how are they being exploited?”  Well let’s play the hypothetical game and say Virginia Tech just received a verbal commitment from a 5-star football recruit, he is top 5 in the ESPN Top 150, and let’s arbitrarily assign him the name “Kevin”.  Now Kevin’s market value is already, if not more, double the scholarship he will receive (because keep in mind that he has already been marketed heavily, either through magazine publications such as Rise or on websites such as Rivals).  Also, Kevin is without a doubt going to dominate college football, so long as he doesn’t tear a tendon or break anything, and will be marketed by the institution, not with his name, but with his “likeness” (e.g. number) that everyone knows.  And let us not forget that he will be in the multi-million dollar videogame franchise EA Sports NCAA Football for at least 3 iterations.  Kevin will also be a crucial bargaining chip for the NCAA as they go out and seek television contracts, which, by the way, has usurped the millions and leaped into the multi-billions.  So as Kevin excels at his craft, he generates more and more money for his collegiate institution and the NCAA, but if he wanted personal representation, such as an agent, or if he wanted to individually sell his own merchandise, or even if he wanted to give football lessons to other students and marketed the business, he would be ineligible to play in the NCAA because of his “student-athlete” status.  Moreover, if he hasn’t been out of high school for more than three years or played three college football seasons, he would be ineligible to play in the NFL as well  (e.g. Maurice Clarett). 

            Now let’s juxtapose Kevin to a music student here at Virginia Tech.  Kevin is strictly prohibited from selling his skill-set or talents at market value, while a music student can sign a record deal, market themselves however they see fit, and be rewarded for their hard-work and exceptional abilities.  The only difference between them is their status: one is a “student-athlete” and one is just a normal “student”.  The logical oddity here is that any “student” could, in principle, make up their own sport, market it, and sell it to the student body.  (One caveat, if you decide to do this and it becomes popular, expect a lawsuit from the NCAA.) 

            The CC also makes a great point when they point out that the NFL is the only major professional sport that has the three-year eligibility rule.  All the other sports, besides the NBA who in 2005 changed their eligibility requirement to 19, have a minimum age requirement of 18 or less.  The NFL is the anomaly and it has tacitly conspired with the NCAA in creating a free farm system where both entities can capitalize on the student-athlete’s inability to generate revenue and, as a result, both entities have unlimited access to an unpaid source of marketable entertainment.  Need proof?  There is actually pending litigation (O’Bannon v. NCAA) that is challenging the issue of the reproduction of collegiate athletes’ “likeness” in videogames, rebroadcast of games, DVD sales, photos, and etc. without due compensation or royalty payments to the athletes.  Moreover, Walter Byers, a pervious executive director of the NCAA from 1951 to 1987, actually wrote a book called “Unsportsmanlike Conduct” where he explicitly states that contemporary college sports are no longer a student activity, but rather, a high-dollar commercial enterprise.  It is quite evident that even the internal workings of the NCAA understand what is going on, and it is quite ironic when they write statements like, “student-athletes should be protected from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprise” in the NCAA manuals they give to their student-athletes.

            The TAGPC, on the other hand, views the question of compensation from an entirely different perspective.  The TAGPC’s rebuttal is that student-athletes are already being compensated equitably, and it is not so much whether or not they should be paid, but how.  If college football and basketball players receive extra monetary benefits from the NCAA or their own institution, then they would have to, in accordance with Title IX, give those same monetary benefits to every collegiate athlete, which would be a substantial amount of money.  Moreover, fewer than 12 percent of all FBS schools generated positive net revenue in fiscal year 2009 – so most institutions are not even fiscally sound as is.  So simply put, paying players is not an option.  Now let’s also consider the value of a college degree that some of these players would not receive if it were not for their extraordinary athletic ability.  According to Dr. Patrick Rishe (Forbes), the average cost of in-state expenses in a top 25 football school for 4 years is $99,492 and the average degree value is $2,045,360.  That is a short-term savings of almost $100,000 – not including the intangible benefits associated with the scholarship (e.g. free coaching, lower unemployment rates for college graduates, free publicity, free gear, personal tutors etc.) -- and a long-term earnings potential of $2 million.  So the portrayal of student-athletes being deprived is disingenuous and they should laud the opportunity they have been given – there are plenty of students who would love to be debt-free and have access to personal tutors and various other special privileges.  As it was expressed on ESPN, student-athletes are not going hungry and we will never see a player go on the IR due to famine.   

            In conclusion, compensating student-athletes is neither feasible nor logical because college athletics would inevitably become a bidding warzone for recruits – just like the professional sports free agency market -- and the integrity of amateur athletics would be lost in the process.  However, the system that is currently in place needs a major overhaul.  What the NCAA and NFL are doing is despicable, detestable, and flat out unjust.  Preventing high-profile athletes from trying out for the NFL without satisfying the 3-year eligibility requirement is the reason for all the problems the NCAA is facing.  Playing collegiate athletics is a privilege and it should be secondary to obtaining a quality education.  If an athlete has no intention of obtaining a degree and is only going to college to get drafted, their scholarship money should be given to someone who actually needs it and will use that investment towards their education.  Changing the eligibility rules will also force higher-education institutions to reevaluate their core values and invest more money back into the academic fields, rather than purchasing a multi-million dollar locker room so athletes can sip on champagne while lounging in the hot tub.