College Athletes Should Not Be Paid - Essay Example

College Athletes Should Not Be Paid Synopsis of Issues. The payment of money to amateur athletes has traditionally been viewed to be contrary to the very essence and true meaning of amateurism.1 The proposal to pay college athletes who are amateurs poses several legal issues like taxation, labor law, not only to the university but the student athlete as well. The dangers of a pay-for-play system clearly are not limited to the universities. Student-athletes would also face several serious problems. Currently, most universities have standing policies of keeping student-athletes on scholarship if they suffer a career ending injury. Under a business oriented pay-for-play system in which performance is not only expected, but required for payment, such practices would undoubtedly cease. Student-athletes would also be forced to deal with the overwhelming business concerns that come with a professional system. Student-athletes may be placed in a bargaining situation that they could not possibly be expected to fully comprehend. Student-athletes would be forced to employ agents, accountants, and attorneys for assistance.2 Tax Issues. Problems that universities have avoided by preserving amateurism would begin to haunt them under pay-for-play. As one commentator has noted, a costly problem universities would face under pay-for-play would be the loss of their tax exempt status for income derived from athletics.3 Currently, universities pay no federal tax on tuition or other payments attributable to educational activities.4 Like other tax-exempt institutions, universities are taxed only on "unrelated business taxable income."5Unrelated business taxable income is income from a trade or business that is regularly carried on, but is not "substantially related" to the institution's primary purpose.6 The primary purpose of a university is education.7 Currently, college athletics are considered to be substantially related to education. The Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") spoke of this relationship in a 1978 IRS technical advice memorandum which extolled the amateur student-athlete as providing justifications for connecting intercollegiate athletics with education. Therefore, if college athletics were to become strictly a commercial venture, with athletes compensated for playing, the IRS most likely could no longer support the idea that athletics are rationally related to education and would tax the earnings derived from such events. This loss of profits due to taxation would significantly lower college revenues and would likely result in less popular sports being discontinued due to lack of funding, as well as the possibility of limiting funds for athlete services such as scholarships, financial aid, and tutoring. Athletes as Employees: Labor Law Issue. A pay-for-play system could also open a Pandora's box for employment claims, including salaries, the right to form unions, and workers' compensation benefits.8 Due to the nature of athletics and the potential for injury, the addition of workers' compensation claims would be especially costly. Student-athletes' entitlement to workers' compensation is generally held to rest upon whether they are "employees" under the applicable workers' compensation law.9 Under the NCAA's current system most courts have held that universities are not liable for injuries suffered by student-athletes under workers' compensation laws10. In support of these holdings the courts have repeatedly pointed to the concept of amateurism.11 These courts reason that because student-athletes are non-compensated amateurs they are not employees and thus are not entitled to workers' compensation.12 If the amateurism policy is abandoned and a pay-for-play system adopted, courts could no longer deny student-athletes workers' compensation benefits because they would be employees. A second justification for paying student-athletes is that they are university employees13. This idea directly conflicts with established principles of amateurism. Consequently, courts are reluctant to alter the dynamics of collegiate athletics and have rejected this argument. Nonetheless, as these courts come to more readily accept the inescapable fact that major-college programs operate as commercial enterprises, they will undoubtedly reconsider their prior decisions.The relationship between employer and employee is contractual. In Rensing v. Indiana State University Board of Trustees,14 the Indiana Supreme Court denied recovery for permanent disability and additional medical expenses to a football player who was rendered a quadriplegic as a result of an injury sustained in practice.15 Specifically, the court denied the existence of an employment contract, finding that the parties lacked the express or implied intent to enter into an agreement.16 In reaching this conclusion, the court gave special weight to the NCAA's amateurism rules. The court reasoned that, "A fundamental policy of the NCAA, which is stated in its constitution, is that intercollegiate sports are viewed as part of the educational system and are clearly distinguished from the professional sports business."17 Apparently, by the Rensing court's reasoning, the NCAA's principles of amateurism preclude it or any of its member institutions from forming the express or implied intent to enter into an employment agreement. Pay-for-Play and Title IX. Pay-for-play proponents base their arguments only on the revenue producing sports of men's basketball and football. In doing so, they ignore Title IX and its gender equity provisions.18 In 1979, Title IX was held applicable to college sports and specifically mandated colleges to provide substantially proportionate opportunities to female athletes.19 Under a pay-for-play system, Title IX might require both male and female athletes to be compensated. Increased cost to universities might then force them to make budget cuts and eliminate less popular sports. Thus, instead of helping college athletes, a pay-for-play system could actually work against them. Such a result is not in the best interests of student-athletes. NCAA Pay Restrictions. The NCAA maintains monetary restrictions on student athletes.20 Also subject to the restrictions are commercial endorsements and opportunities for outside employment.21 The NCAA rule regarding payments to athletes, bylaw 12.1.2, mandates that a student-athlete will be penalized by loss of amateur status and concomitent eligibility through receipt of payment, which under the rule, is classified as encompassing a wide array of specific practices.22 The NCAA rules prohibiting employment are aimed at limiting the opportunity for boosters, alumni, agents or prospective agents to "assist" the student athlete. The rule provides that an athlete on full scholarship may not work during the school year or any time that class is in session.23 NCAA Bylaw 15.2 limits the amount of financial aid a student may receive to "tuition and fees, room and board, and required course-related books."24 The NCAA bylaws specifically include, as sources of funds which must be considered in this amount, "employment during semester or term time."25 Antitrust Questions. Another issue that could arise in the payment of college players is the question of price fixing. Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act provides that: "[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."26 The Supreme Court has long held that only "unreasonable restraints of trade" are proscribed by the Act.27 Some restraints on economic activity are viewed by the Court as so inherently anti-competitive that they are deemed per se illegal. Examples of this type of conduct would be group boycotts, market divisions, tying arrangements, and price fixing.28 I found it repugnant and disturbing that over the last twenty years college athletics have become increasingly commercial. College games are being named after corporate sponsors and the salaries of coaches have grown to astronomical figures. If college athletics wish to continue without paying the college athletes, there must be some changes. First, there must be an end to the commercial exploitation of student-athletes. For example, current NCAA rules allow universities to require student-athletes to display the logo of the team's athletic corporate sponsor on their uniforms. I personally think that this practice transforms student-athletes into walking billboards, and clearly crosses the line between a fair mix of amateurism and commercialization. The purity of the sport and the student-athlete deserve more deep respect. Second, I think that there should be a limit in unnecessary travel that student-athletes must endure in the average season. Teams are consistently traveling thousands of miles to play insignificant nonconference games without any valid reason at all. This practice is expensive and deprives student-athletes of valuable class and study time, which is why they are in school in the first place. Finally, there must be a concerted effort to emphasize the value of college education. The main purpose of the universities - education - has become lost in the hype that surrounds college sports. This must cease. Student-athletes need to be reminded that competing in college athletics is a special opportunity, that it is not a money making venture and that it is not the sole purpose for attending a university. References 15 U.S.C. 1 (1994). Brown, J. Compensation For The Student-Athlete: Preservation Of Amateurism. SPG Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y, 5, 147. Curtis, T. (1995). Wrestling with Title IX Compliance and Men's Sports Programs, Ent. & Sports Law. Ent. & Sports Law, 13, 1, 12. Retrieved March 01, 2008, from www.westlaw.com Davis, T. (1994). Intercollegiate Athletics: Competing Models and Conflicting Realities. Rutgers L.J., 25, 269, 283. Hilborn, H. (1995). Comment, Student-Athletes and Judicial Inconsistency. N.W. U.L. Rev., 89, 741, 777. Jensen, E. (1987). Taxation, The Student Athlete, And The Professionalization of College Athletics. Utah L. Rev., 1987, 35, 58. NCAA Manual & Bylaws. (1990). NCAA. NCAA May Ok Endorsements. (1988, October 17). Sports Inc. Nestel, D. (1992). Athletic Scholarships: An Imbalance of Power Between the University and the Student-Athlete. Ohio St. L.J., 53, 1401, 1402. News. (1988, October 21). Sports Industry News, p. 325. Paterno, J., & Asbell, B. (1989). Paterno By The Book. Riggs, O. (137). The Facade Of Amateurism: The Inequities Of Major-College Athletics,. SPG Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y, 5. Russo, J. (1994, November 15). No Easy Answers in Pay-for-Play. Chi. Trib. Retrieved March 01, 2008, from www.westlaw.com Shropshire, K. (1991). Legislation for the Glory of Sport: Amateurism and Compensation. SETON HALL J. SPORT L., 1, 7, 11. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911). White Motor Co. v. United States, 372 US 253 (1963). Young, D. (1985). The Olympic Myth of Greek Amateur Athletics. Read More