I'm not a consistent reader of Time magazine. I don't even remember the last time I read an article in one. But ever since this particular issue graced the newsstands, I felt the time had come to discuss what is one of the hottest issues in sports right now, and the current headache for the NCAA.
The issue at play here is the payment of NCAA athletes, specifically football and basketball players, which is currently in violation of NCAA rules and jeopardizes the "amateur" status of college athletes. Many people feel that the NCAA takes advantage of the athletes and profits off of their image and achievements while also prohibiting them to do the same.
In a nutshell, current NCAA rules liken athletes to volunteers, as opposed to employees. The NCAA, or National Collegiate Athletic Association, will use the players likeness to sell T-shirts, jerseys, and all sorts of other gadgets. Their likeness will grace the rosters of video games such as NCAA football, their exact measurements, numbers and age intact. But by omitting the names, the parties that contribute to bring together the game remove their responsibilities to pay the players.
Johnny Manziel, the standout quarterback for Texas A & M, is flashy. arrogant and cocky, to put it nicely. He talks the talk, oh boy does he talk, but he also walks the walk. He is one of the better players in recent memory to light up college football, and as such, he has copious requests for autographs. He was recently involved in a very questionable scheme where it is believed that he profited off the sale of his own autograph, however the NCAA chose not to suspend him after a lengthy investigation.
The discussion sweeping the nation is such.
Should college athletes be paid for their work?
First off, the argument FOR the paying of players. I'm going to assume a persona for this argument. This persona's name is John. He is 23, loves college football, money, partying and voiding all social responsibility. I assume this persona only because it is the most common type of individual who aligns themselves with the athletes getting compensated. John is asked how to settle the issue of paying players in the NCAA versus leaving them as amateurs.
" They need to be paid. They make so much money for the athletic programs, and the schools just sell their jerseys and likenesses. The players make these programs what they are, and the schools make so much money, they definitely have enough to pay the players."
John is part of an uninformed and assuming faction of fans who believe that the majority of college football programs operate in the green. This could not be further from the truth. According to recent figures, only 22 out of 120 college athletic programs turn a profit. For many schools, including my Alma Mater CMU, they operate with as much as a 15 million dollar deficit every year.
Now, lets examine a crucial flaw in the group think here. Football is, of course, the largest generator of revenue for most programs (45%, on average). If the football programs don't even make enough revenue to cover the losses from every other sport, how is their possibly enough money to be distributed to the players? Additionally, while about 58% of football and 56% of men's basketball teams are self-sufficient, only 1 women's basketball program is. For the remaining 98 schools operating in the red, there is no way to distribute funds to athletes without plunging the program further into debt.
Here come's John again. He's listened half-heartedly to the facts, considered the figures and arrived at a conclusion. John is an Alabama fan, and has decided that he still doesn't understand why schools that have the money cannot pay athletes if they so choose. Two reasons John.
Reason number 1: School A operates on a 10 million a year profit. School B operates at a loss of 5 million every year. They are in the same conference, same region, and compete for the same recruits. School A sees that School B gets a free pass on paying their athletes because they don't have the funds to do so, yet A is expected to pay it's athletes because it does turn a profit? This presents an unfair situation for school A, and would create more issues than it would solve.
Reason number 2: Say that the NCAA allows schools to pay its students if it has the funds to do so. School A promises every 5 star recruit a $5,000 signing bonus to come to play. Assuming the recruit is on the fence between the two, he or she is much more likely to choose the money over school B. Faced with this impossible disadvantage, school B resorts to drudging up the funds to pay players from all the worst places, increasing the financial strain on the university as a whole.
And now to my personal take on the matter, Using mostly the logic from reason #2 above, I feel there is an obvious gap between the top earners in college football and...well, everyone else. Assuming that the majority of recruits will choose to play at a school that offers them money versus one that does not, the playing field is hardly level from a recruiting stand point. Allowing schools to pay athletes will open the flood gates, per se. Where does the line get drawn once players are no longer amateurs, but paid?
After substantial thought, I have arrived at a potentially simple compromise for both sides. Schools will continue to compensate their athletes as they currently do within NCAA rules, to very specific guidelines. However, a player would be the manager of their own personal brand, as I feel is their right. If star QB James Jameson wants to sign and sell 50 jerseys outside of practice for five bucks a pop, then by all means, he can. If he is approached by a local car dealership asking him to star in a commercial, then he would be free to do so, provided it did not conflict with any organized team activities. The minute that an athlete's self promotion impeded on team activities, he or she would be subject to action by the university.
As you might expect, this compromise does create a somewhat unfair playing field. A student playing at Southern Alabama State, if that even exists, will not be able to create the sort of revenue off of autographs/commercials/memorabilia sales as say, Johnny Manziel. The simple fact is that the big schools will always attract bigger profile players, and those players will likely draw more demand for autographs. However, the beauty of this system allows players to make at least a portion of what they think they deserve, (as if free college wasn't enough) while completely removing the financial burden on colleges.
The sports world is getting all too familiar with the frequent admissions and scandals involving impermissible benefits received by athletes. The NCAA can suspend players and punish programs for as long as they want, but the violations will not stop. Whether it be tattoos, Tahoes or tacos, there are plenty of athletes who will ask for and receive compensation from coaches and boosters. Why not fight fire with fire and implement a policy that allows the NCAA to focus on what it does best, while allowing athletes the flexibility to make the money for a large fry to go with their Big Mac.
No comments:
Post a Comment