Should NCAA Division Football Players Get Paid - Assignment Example

Should D Football Players be Paid? College athletes, specifically football players, are at a severe financial disadvantage compared to other students and therefore should be paid at least a stipend by the university. Students not involved in sports are able to obtain part-time employment in order to purchase necessary peripheral items such as toiletries, clothing, school related incidentals and perhaps a pizza on the weekend. Some argue that college football players are paid by virtue of their scholarship and that is sufficient reimbursement for their services. Putting aside for the moment that these athletes that participate in the more popular sports earn millions of dollars for the university and that other students reap these benefits as well, athletes are denied the same lack of restrictions to earn while they learn and as a result should be somewhat compensated. The sum of this stipend is arguable but a reasonable amount of, for instance, $100 per month does not seem out of line. “The problem is, the athletes who help schools and conferences make that money do not see a dime of it. They may receive scholarships, but so do students who don’t help the school make money in any way. Players should get a stipend on top of their scholarships so that they see some of the money they helped the school make. If schools can profit off of student athletes, why should those athletes not be paid for helping schools make money?” (Zivic, 2006). This paper will examine the various reasons why college football players should be paid. The NCAA alone makes more than $200 million each winter on the bowl games that follow the regular football season, an amount that doesn’t count the dividends the individual conferences enjoy. Now add up ticket and concession proceeds, corporate sponsorships and money gained from merchandise sales that without the presence of sports would not be funneled into a university annually. The athletes know that they generate literally many billions of dollars for their schools, yet are not allowed to earn even pocket change while at school, giving their all for ‘ole State U. Athletes are allowed only the most meager of an existence under NCAA regulations. Meanwhile, they witness other students with money enough at least for an occasional date and their coach earning a multi-million dollar salary but know that they are the ones that make the greatest sacrifices. “Athletes see what’s in it for everybody else. They see their jersey numbers on the racks of the campus bookstore, but they dont see any share of the profit. They see their coaches drawing million-dollar salaries and their schools and conferences taking cash from corporate sponsors, but they don’t get a whiff of the action” (Whiteside, 2004). Nebraska State legislators approved a stipend for football players at the University of Nebraska and legislators from Texas, Iowa and California have considered measures that would offer athletes a very small allotment if special needs arose but as of now, no laws have been formally passed. This welfare-based initiative would address situations such as that of Maurice Clarett, a former running back at Ohio State. Prior to the 2003 national championship game, neither he nor his parents were financially able to buy him a plane ticket to attend a friend’s funeral. The university, booster club or coaches were not allowed to pay for the trip thus he was on campus the day his boyhood friend was buried. Nevertheless, payments to athletes, no matter how small or necessary, is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future. According to NCAA President Myles Brand, “We have a model for paying players. It’s called professional sports” (Whiteside, 2004). The NCAA reports that of the 1000 schools in its membership, only 40 earn a profit each year, all of which are Division I-A institutions and have either a successful football or basketball program. Though revenues continue to rise for these select schools; the remaining schools are suffering growing deficits. In most cases, schools utilize money gained from its more successful and thus profitable sports programs to fund the other sports activities at the school such as the bulk of women’s athletic programs. The vast majority of schools could not afford to pay for programs that did not pay for themselves if not for the athletes that put ‘butts in seats.’ These athletes are producing enormous revenues that not only pay for other sports programs but pump money into the general scholarship fund (Meshefejian, 2005) Athletes should be compensated at least minimally but not just athletes that are involved in revenue producing sports. All college athletes should receive a modest salary because all of them allocate so much of their time to their particular sport. Even the non-profitable sports programs provide publicity to the institutions in amounts impossible to quantify. “There are also student-athletes who have to leave school early because they do not have enough money to continue, or to pay their bills and leaving school for a career in professional sports is an easy way of making money.  The argument is that if student-athletes get paid, they will remain in school and complete their education” (Meshefejian, 2005). When a student-athlete or their family is experiencing financial problems as is the case in many situations, the pressure to quit school and pursue a professional career is immense. What would motivate an athlete in this predicament to stay and finish school if they were offered even a minor league contract or a backup role at the major league level? Many examples exist where athletes opt to turn professional, then are out of a job within a year or two and cannot return to school because they can no longer be offered a scholarship. If they could have justified, financially speaking, staying in school, many may have graduated and whether or not they succeeded at the professional level, they would have had a diploma and therefore a solid career and a brighter future. Furthermore, college athletes face the constant threat of suffering a career ending injury. This would end not only their dreams of a professional career but also ends their educational career as well. For most student-athletes, the professional ranks are out of reach but an injury still would likely end their dreams for a higher education. In this situation, scholarships should not be revoked. The institution should honor their commitment to the athlete in the same way that the athlete made a fateful commitment to the institution. This is just another method, in addition to small payments, that a college should underscore the ideals of fairness to those that provide it and other students a great financial benefit. Injuries to college athletes occur to various degrees and cause various negative outcomes. Anthony Poindexter, a football player at the University of Virginia, is but one example of injuries affecting the future earnings potential of a college athlete. Poindexter was a first team All-American selection and was projected to be picked in either low first round or high second round draft pick in the NFL. However, in his senior season during the seventh game, he injured his knee. Instead of being a sure high-round choice, he was the 216th overall pick by the Baltimore Ravens. The injury cost Poindexter millions of dollars (Chaisson, 2001). The opponents of paying college players a small stipend do not mention cases such as Poindexter. He lived, as many athletes do, in dire poverty while attending school but still put the university’s interest ahead of his own. The young man lost a fortune because of his loyalty to his university. He could have opted to leave early and become a millionaire but did not. In light of this scenario alone, it does not seem unreasonable to allow athletes to carry a bit of spending money while in school. Some have suggested that athletes be given a share of the profits that are made as a result of their efforts. Of course this is the way it works in the business world but athletes are considered shameful if they draw parallels between what they do and how the rest of the capitalist world operates. It’s a double standard and patently unfair. I would not suggest this approach to payment of athletes but not compensating them in the smallest of ways is a travesty of decency, simple humanity and fairness. “An objection would be that athletes are awarded full scholarships and therefore should receive no further compensation. While these scholarships are a very positive part of college sports, they only take care of the tuition. There are many other expenses and, with no source of income, athletes may struggle with money” (Geoghegan, 2002). Some argue that athletes are treated as privileged citizens on campus. Well, of course they are, but many of the people that believe this to be true are part of the tens of thousands that cheer them from the stands. Their ‘rock-star’ status is not of the athletes’ choosing but is unavoidable. However, those that think that athletes are privileged characters are looking only at the surface outcomes of the overall picture. There unquestionably is a disparity between college athletes and other students and it does not favor the athlete. For example, university students who are involved in extracurricular activities other than athletics, musicians for example, receive scholarships and can perform for the university’s symphony whether or not they make passing grades or are academically eligible. They are able to perform and earn money in a professional orchestra while enrolled in school. By comparison, if athletes do this, they are kicked out of school, lose their scholarship and most probably end their chance of playing professionally. Ask Maurice Clarett. Moreover, a music student is able to major and earn a degree in the field of music and even a specific instrument such as the piano. “A football or basketball major is unheard of, much less a major in playing quarterback or strong forward. Athletes are scrutinized for getting any type of job while on scholarship for their school. Getting paid to play or work in football would be sacrilege” (Chaisson, 2001). It is patently unfair that a college athlete must meet academic and financially binding standards that other students do not. Those that think athletes are treated differently than other students are correct. They are treated worse even though they bring in much more money and thus are more beneficial to their school than is a piano player. “What the NCAA seems to fail to realize is that it is doing its athletes an incredible injustice by not paying them, one that would certainly not be tolerated in other fields. If an organization makes significant profits as a result of the work done by participants in the organization, then it is the duty of the organization to reward those participants by giving them a portion of the profits” (Geoghegan, 2002). College athletes are representative of a unique segment of the school’s general population. More is required of them. They expend much more effort and time than other students and are constantly challenged with balancing athletics, academics, and social responsibilities. Their special commitment to their school entails practicing more than 20 hours per week, traveling extensively and must miss classes that they must make-up in order to compete. Despite this, college athletes must perform well in the classroom, undertake a full class load while keeping a certain GPA and make similar degree progress that other students do just to be able to play sports. These extra burdens do not allow for similar social interactions as other students enjoy or time to participate in various other school activities. “A student athlete who has the desire to pursue a career in athletics or a challenging degree program can easily become overwhelmed by athletic demands. As a result, less emphasis, time, and energy is placed on academic related tasks” (Carodine et al, 2001). Despite these disproportionate demands on athletes, their scholastic performance is highly scrutinized and overall, college athletes graduate at a higher rate than general population students (Suggs, 2003). An NCAA report showed that the graduation rate of college athletes was 60 percent as compared to non-athletes which was lower at 58 percent (“Division I Athlete Graduation Rate”, 2002). Though young in age, athletes must make very mature decisions regarding every aspect of their college life. They must consistently find a balance between athletics, school work, social, personal and family life. Most are willing and capable of this feat. The majority performs scholastically and do not wish to be exempted from classes. They realize that only a small percent of athletes go on to the professional ranks and they are primarily at school to get their education. The statistics bear-out this observation. They use their athletic abilities as a tool that supplies them with an opportunity that many of them would not otherwise have had (Carter, 1998). No one, not the athlete, parent, educators or those outside the system are lobbying for a reduction of class time for student athletes because all generally agree that this would only be a detriment. Most athletes would agree that it’s the school work that is the key to their future success and if there is a professional career waiting for then, it is a bonus. Even if there is a pro career on the horizon, the education they receive prepares them intellectually for life, no matter where that life may lead them. Several professional players, Emmett Smith, for example, have gone back to college even after enjoying a successful and highly lucrative career in the pros. Few have had a more successful career than Smith, the NFL’s most prolific rusher in its history (Carter, 1998). It seems that everyone profits from the talents of college football players; every athletic program, the NCAA, conferences, universities and its various scholastic endeavors. Coaches make millions of dollars for their efforts yet never as much as pull a muscle much less take the physical, physiological and emotional beating that their players do. None of the benefactors of big time football monies make the sacrifices that the players make. If colleges can justify paying the coaches that much money, then they can justify all small stipend so that the money makers don’t have to make more sacrifices than they already do. Colleges claim that they want to keep integrity in the game and paying players would compromise this premise but will willingly pay coaches mega-bucks instead of funneling more money into academic interests. Those that are of the opinion that player should be paid many times are the same people who might also think that athletes should be allowed exemptions from attending all or some of the normally required courses because of their rigorous schedule that includes out-of-town trips. This, however, is flawed logic and would be a detriment to the student-athlete because it negates the fundamental reasons for attending college which is to gain knowledge that will enhance their adult lives and lifestyles. Colleges are institutions of learning and most student-athletes acknowledge and embrace this concept. The suggestion made in this paper to pay football players is a separate issue and does not advocate allowing students missing class-work. These two distinct issues are commonly brought up in the same argument of those who champion the rights of Division 1 football players but it seems that while one is reasonable, the other is not. Paying players is only fair and equitable but allowing them to bypass some or much of their education would be patently unfair. A majority of college athletes would not be in school if not for their talents because the high cost is prohibitive. Parents universally remind their athletically inclined child that they must work hard in both the athletic and scholastic arena if they have any chance to go to college. This dream is instilled early on and kids work diligently for many years to achieve this goal. Many parents cannot afford to attend the games in which their child is competing much less have the financial ability to send their over-achieving children the extra money needed for even the barest of essentials while they are at school. “It’s great that college players get a place to sleep and they can pay for their books and maybe get a meal card with their scholarship but that isn’t enough. How are they supposed to do laundry? What do they do for transportation? How do they buy clothes? How do they buy food on the weekend or when they are out of town? You might say, well they should get a job but how is that possible? College athletes have to go to class, they have to study, and they have to go to practices, sometimes multiple times a day for a couple of hours” (Henderson, 2007). A small stipend should not be viewed as an unneeded luxury for already pampered college athletes. By contrast, it should be seen as a fair, humane thing to do for those youths who are contributing and sacrificing more than all others to their university. A small amount of spending money would go a long way in easing the burden of football players that have only time to attend classes, study, practice and play awhile they watch those that are not sacrificing their time and body go to movies with dates or order a pizza every now and then. It is small money and a small matter that should not have to be argued by school administrators, NCAA officials, athletes or ‘bloggers’ on the internet over many years. It would not cause a decline in the ethics of either society as whole or scholastic institutions. In fact, paying high profile football players would be the decent, moral and ethical course of action to take. This is the only argument against the practice, that it would cause a loss of the integrity associated with amateur athlete status, but this logic, though well-intentioned, is inconsistent with itself. “Yes, there is some mystique surrounding amateur athletes because the fact that they play for love of the game is a romantic notion to some fans. Still, exceptions must be made because the injustice of the current system far outweighs this idealistic concept” (Geoghegan, 2002). For those that give so much, there is no harm, whether perceived or real, in allowing college football players a small amount of ‘spending money’ but the strict rules and subsequent punishment that restricts it does cause harm both to the athlete and to the concepts of common decency and justice. References Carodine, K., Almond, K. F., & Gratto, K. K. (2001). “College Student Athlete Success both Inside and Outside of the Classroom.” Student Services for Student Athletes. New Directions for Student Services. M. F. Howard-Hamilton & S. K. Watt (Eds.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Carter, CinQue. “Athletes Should Stay in School Before Relying on False Dreams.” (October 29, 1998). UCLA Communications Board. Available March 30, 2007 from Chaisson, Nathan. (2001). “Athletes Should be Paid to Play.” The Collegiate Times. Available March 30, 2007 from “Division I Athlete Graduation Rate Reaches 60 Percent.” (September 30, 2002). Available March 30, 2007 from Geoghegan, William. (2002). “Sports Debate: Should College Athletes Get Paid? Yes.” Flyer News. Vol. 50, N. 26. Available March 30, 2007 from Henderson, Lee Andrew. (March 28, 2007). “Should College Athletes Be Paid?” Associated Content. Available March 30, 2007 from Meshefejian, Krikor. (March 23, 2005). “Pay to Play: Should College Athletes be Paid?” The Journal of Business Law Society. University of Illinois College of Law. Available March 30, 2007 from Suggs, W. (April 18, 2003). “Grades and Money: NCAA Considers New Rules that Would Tie Sports Participation to Academic Performance.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. pp. A43, A45. Whiteside, Kelly. (August 31, 2004). “College Athletes Want Cut of Action.” USA Today. Available March 30, 2007 from Zivic, Andrew. (April 2, 2006). “Take a Side: College Athletes Should be Paid.” Imprint Magazine. Available March 30, 2007 from Read More