DANIEL STYLER
<Staff Writer>
According to the NCAA, college athletic programs in the United States generate $6.1 billion from ticket sales, radio and television receipts, alumni contributions, guarantees, royalties, and NCAA distributions. They also generate an additional $5.3 billion in what is called allocated revenue, which comes from student fees allocated to athletics, as well as institutional and government support. The NCAA’s revenue totaled $871.6 million in 2011-12; they are able to call themselves a non-profit organization, though, because all but 4 percent of that is returned to member conferences and institutions or to support championships and programs that “benefit student-athletes.”
If you think that NCAA athletes, without whom there would be no revenue at all, receive compensation for what they do, you would be wrong. While some receive full scholarships, most don’t; there are only six sports where all of the scholarships handed out are full. Even when it comes to athletes who receive large scholarships, the value of the education that they receive from their scholarship is, at least, debatable. After all, many athletes who receive scholarships are athletes first and students second. A study conducted by the NCAA provides context for this statement: Division 1 male athletes in baseball, basketball, and football spent between 39-43 hours per week devoted to their sport, more time than they spent on their school work.
To recap, then: student-athletes help to generate massive amounts of revenue for their college athletic program, (sometimes) receive scholarships, but ultimately spend more time focusing on athletics than making use of the apparent “benefit” (free education) that they’ve received in exchange for the revenue that they have helped generate.
Something about that doesn’t seem right; something about that sounds a lot like exploitation.
It always surprises me, then, when NCAA athletes are faced with condemnation if they dare to undermine this exploitive system. For instance, football players at Ohio State received a total of $14,000 in cash and tattoos (yes, tattoos) in exchange for jerseys, rings and other Ohio State memorabilia. Five of these players were suspended for five games at the beginning of the next season and another was suspended for one game.
Personally, I can’t be morally outraged by players finding it hard to accept rules that are stacked against them, prohibiting them from making a profit from their participation in NCAA sports because they are “amateurs,” mainly because I can imagine that it’s pretty easy for athletes at schools like Ohio State not to feel like an amateur. Their coach that season, Jim Tressel, made about $3.5 million (he was also suspended for five games, and ultimately resigned from Ohio State, due to his involvement in the scandal). They played in front of 100,000 fans at every home game. That doesn’t feel too amateur to me.
In addition to generating revenue for their college, there is another compelling reason for paying athletes: the athletes that have an opportunity to eventually make money as a professional are risking that opportunity by playing collegiate sports (which is almost made unavoidable by rules requiring football players to be three years and basketball players one year out of high school before they can be drafted).
Nerlens Noel of the Kentucky Wildcats, the top player in college basketball and projected number one pick in next year’s NBA draft, tore his ACL in a recent game. As a Kentucky fan, my first thought when I saw his injury wasn’t “oh my God, our season is over;” it was, “oh my God, his career could be over.”
It has put his draft status in question, as it is unclear when he will be able to play again. While the general sentiment is that he will still be drafted (and drafted high), it still forces you to ask what would have happened if it had been worse. If it had significantly impacted his draft status in the NBA and cost him millions of dollars, what recourse would he have?
As of now, the insurance policy in the NCAA is one that only protects athletes in cases of career-ending injuries and costs up to $40,000; because his career isn’t over, this policy wouldn’t have benefitted Noel. Athletes are also able to purchase “loss of value” insurance, which guards against a drop in draft position (which can mean losses in the millions). That type of insurance is expensive, with a policy costing up to six figures. Ever accommodating, the NCAA only allows an athlete to purchase this type of insurance if the athlete’s family can pay for the premium without taking out a loan (as a loan would violate NCAA rules relating to extra benefits). This is a financial burden that is completely unreasonable for most families, and really helps to illustrate how little the NCAA cares about its athletes (unless they’re making them money).
It’s time for collegiate athletes to get paid; everyone else involved does.