College athletes who receive payment to compete

The question of whether or not collegiate athletes should be paid has recently become the focus of heated national discussion. Some people believe that receiving compensation is appropriate, while others vehemently disagree. College football or basketball players aren't getting paid; they're just playing. A research by Borghese (2016) found that the majority of well-known athletes live in poverty, despite the fact that they generate significant revenue for their institutions. The poll, conducted by the Drexel University sports management department, looked at collegiate basketball and football teams competing in the Football Bowl Subdivisions. The study calculated the athlete's out-of-pocket expenses that are related to education and compared the player's scholarships of room-and-board to the state poverty line and the coaches as well as the athletic administrators 'remunerations. Then, the study used NBA and NFL collecting bargaining agreements in the estimation of fair market value among basketball and football players. The outcome did not favor the athletes. The average shortfall in scholarship for each athlete was 3,222 US dollars during the 2010 school year. Additionally, it was revealed that full scholarship provisions for room-and-board left about 86% of players below the state poverty line (Borghese, 2016).
Argument against Paying College Athletes
The most common argument against paying college athletes is that it weakens the worthiness of education (Baccas,2003). It is believed that institutions of higher learning have violated educational standards by apportioning insignificant expenditures to students who have advanced in athletics. It is argued that college athletes should not be compensated since institutions take extracurricular activities as a way of earning money, praising athletic capacity over merit, creating a bridge between regular students and players and forming hierarchy between schools. Another general argument justification against the pay of student-athletes is that the focus on the aspect of being 'student' would be eliminated from the 'student-athlete,' and many players would lose commitment to their academics (Clark, 2010). This argument could be a constitutional concern except if endorsement deals had regulations for students to follow or other requirements to qualify for the endorsement. These players could lose focus on any practical difficult financial conditions of themselves and families hence could concentrate on graduating besides playing in school teams in case they fail at an attempt to play professionally. Presuming an athlete is an excellent academic performer, the NCAA should manage to prevent its college athletes from selling their jersey or appearing on television commercials. College athletes already gain from participating in college games inclusive of networking, travel, meals, housing, free education and other benefits which offer them a significant support in life as compared to their colleagues. If college athletes begin receiving compensation, nonetheless it would be a continuous process, and they would get much more. The process would result in even further corruption in a system that is already known to be corrupt. Consequently, it would develop more problems than the existing ones.
Furthermore, it is argued that sports on its own should be practiced and steered by the hope of becoming professional and by desire (Competitive nature of NCAA rules keeps student-athletes from being paid, 2015). Critics assert that whatever earns the institution vast sums of money should be compensated accordingly. Therefore, non-athlete students should be included in this group since they, although on a minimal basis also contribute revenue. Regular students generate minimum income for the institution through averages of exceptional grade points that are preserved as well as through the mathematical and scientific discoveries. It is believed that paying college athletes in schools, places athletic capacity over scholastics and merit. If students are compensated at reasonable levels to their unique talents like athletics, then institutions concentrate on chances for students to achieve their highest potential. For instance, students who primarily emphasize on education are offered prospective internship benefits for real learning, and student-athletes should be provided similar opportunities. In reality below 1% of the world population gets into the professional sport (Dent & Brown, 2013). Moreover, rather than be paid, college athletes should be offered the chance to interact with very qualified coaches to assist them ultimately become professionals.
Why NCAA Athletes Should Benefit from their Fame
Currently, NCAA does not allow athletes from colleges to sell autographs receive gifts in the form of money or get in contact with an agent while they are still in their amateur status and qualified participants in NCAA games (Mayberry, 2013). In 2011, the president of NCAA reported that body would not pay the players because the students belonged to NCAA. He resisted the suggestion of paying athletes in spite of a contract that had just been signed to broadcast men's basketball tournament. The NCAA is faced with the problem of how to pay all the athletes equally when the majority of NCAA sports earn very little income for the institutions. In fact, only basketball and football make profits consistently for the majority of NCAA institutions. Basketball and football players earn enormous benefits for their schools, the money which is used in subsidizing other programs. This initiative is logical because of this way; students assist others in achieving a low-cost education at their choice of school. However, it is disturbing why NCAA prohibits them from making their own money on the sides. For instance just as NCAA broadcasts the actions of college athletes games and then sell their jersey for a considerable profit, students should be allowed to do the same. NCAA college players should have all freedoms and rights like all professional players, such as the capacity to sell autographs and earn from appearances and endorsements. It is unfortunate that while high profile people are generating a lot of funds for presentations, another category of less protected and disconnected citizens of the US are prohibited from earning any profit or money from their likeness and images while working as NCAA players. The crux of the argument is that NCAA college-athletes forfeit their rights to make money during their school years while hoping to earn money in future as professionals, or merely obtain a low-cost education at school. Consequently, competitions in NCAA will not change and a significant population of players who fail to get the chance of becoming professionals will still be in a position to generate an average amount of income in college.
College Athletes Should be permitted to Receive Endorsements
In 2014, the NCAA earned 989 million US dollars, however this almost billion-dollar sector has stringent rules that hinder profits or a salary to end up with the players that generate it (Winfree, 2012). The biggest fraction of NCCA's earnings in 2014 which was approximately 700 million US dollar was generated from a contract with Turner broadcasting and CBS to March Madness media rights. Unfortunately, one of the top athletes at NCAA who earned so much income for the body during the March Madness tournament apparently could not afford to buy himself food due to NCAA's regulation on amateurism. Just as there are numerous moral and lawful arguments that do not allow the NCAA to pay salaries to players, there are ways through which NCAA can solve the issues. Instead of NCAA having to pay its college players directly, the organization could possibly allow the athletes to receive endorsement and various types of compensation from external bodies in order to earn profit from their likeness, image and name. Paying college athletes as worker with yearly salaries is not practical because there are several moral and legal difficulties involved with it. In spite all the earnings generated by NCAA during 2014, a report by the Northern Illinois University Law Review revealed that a mere 123 out of 346 men's teams of basketball and 24 of 128 FBS student teams of football generated income (Winfree, 2012). In fact only single women's games program earned an income in 2013.The plain truth is that most of the NCAA program in Division I do not make profits. With the unequal distribution between the teams that earn and those that do not, it would not be appropriate for NCAA to pay for the bill for each student salary. In addition, if NCCA athletes were to be paid by the organization, they would be perceived as workers within the law. Consequently there would be many tax complications and ramifications regarding who gets paid that majority of institutions simply cannot afford. Besides men's football and basketball, there are not so many sports program which have the ability to earn money, and NCAA cannot merely compensate college athletes in those games that earn a profit and fail to compensate many other players who also commit themselves as much in sport. The notion of compensating college athletes as workers is not logical, however does not imply they should be prohibited from receiving appreciation from external sources like jersey sales and endorsement deals (Borghese, 2016). The best student athletes are those who generate income for NCAA and these students have formed a likeness and image to their name which could possibly earn them income. For instance if Nike wats to provide a collegiate player an endorsement deal which could give financial assistance to themselves or family, the NCAA should allow them to do so. With the generation of income by NCAA standing almost a billion yearly, and with the anticipation for it to increase across the years, it is high time to end the exploitation of athletes .Ending exploitation cannot be successful by categorizing these athletes as workers of the institutions, though ,because that may lead to some serious problems. A practical solution would enable many college athletes to earn money off likeness, image and play via endorsement and other ways of payment not straight from NCAA.
Using Salary Cap to Begin Paying College Athletes
According to Nocera (2016) a sports business columnist reporting for New York Times, who was is a former fan of college basketball reveals about the inequalities that were exiting the sport. In his survey, he discovered that men's basketball and football players were confronted with extensive experiences of disparities. He was prompted by this situation and began writing concerning how the establishment of college sport and NCAA benefit from athletes who bring the considerable income pocketed by the adults. The writer formulated a scheme that would divert some money to the students without causing bankruptcy at the athletic department at the university, or damage the structure of college games. He devised a process that focused on around a salary cap as well as many other features.
The suggested idea of salary-cap would not cause the bank to break, as some feared but still holds on some principles of free market. Mainly it is a viable way which is worth looking at. According to this idea, each division 1 basketball and football for men would be given a salary cap similar to professionals, and only that amounts would be much lower. In soccer, the cap would be 3 million US dollar and 650,000 million US dollars in basketball. Secondly, a minimum salary of 25,000 million US dollars would be imposed for every player in every sport (Nocera, 2016). This effort would not significantly raise the economic status of students but would sustain an ordinary college life.
Regarding the aspect of free-market, the lowest salaries amount to the half the cap. The remainder of the funds would serve in the recruitment process in order to provide the most prominent player with more money as motivation to transfer to a specific institution. One institution might wish to offer a permanent player a halfback worth 40,000 US dollars, while another might provide the same player with 60,000 US dollars (Nocera, 2016). The athlete would decide by hard earned money and not the sweet promises from the recruiter. Some people would recoil at this idea. However, Winfree (2012) believes it is better to provide cash payment is way better than the present system in which institutions construct expensive facilities and use vast sums of money on their initiatives to attract good players. It would make more sense to offer part of that money to the athletes, and it would also be less costly. Additionally, it could have other advantages in that institutions could place additional cash in funds which can be taxed according to the current law to compensate athletes. Consequently, it would reduce the university's incentive to hide money and give to students in secret. Furthermore, agreements between schools and players just as any significant economic transaction could be very beneficial. They could need an athlete to spend three years in an institution, diminishing dependence on a one-and-done. The students and their guardians might demand on some educational advantages or the liberty to advance in a specific major.
Sports in college should also embrace the model of Olympics, for players in all games besides basketball and football to be able to endorse commodities and also receive payment for their images and autographs. Of course, salary caps breach antitrust regulations unless they are discussed very carefully with a body representing players. It is for this reason that professional football, hockey, and basketball rely on players' and is the unions vanish the salary caps are lost. For student players, such a plan is already present, and it is known as the National College Players Association (NCPA) (Nocera, 2016).As a support body, the N.C.P.A does not have authority which if given would be in a position to negotiate for college players. The NCPA would engage NCAA as well as the Power 5 in negotiations regarding minimum salaries and the salary cap., which would possibly increase in future. It would also get an opportunity to witness NCAA and conferences negotiate over television rights with networks. The athletes would receive a certain fraction of the entire marketing and TV platforms. This share would be kept in the NCPA fund and released to an athlete at the completion of school. Some given to athletes would be determined by the TV contract and the frequency at which the player's team appeared on TV. This procedure may sound complicated. However, distribution of music royalties follows the same procedure. The same fund would help, men's football and basketball players to secure lifetime health insurance. Previous student players would receive health insurance in spite of circumstances, thereby relieving institutions what should be their moral obligation. The NCPA could further scrutinize agents just like professional unions, and protect against long-term injuries for professional prospects (Nocera, 2016).
The suggested plan had another aspect. Even though college qualification would still be the present four years, players would be given the scholarship to complete their degree in eight years. Playing basketball or men's football is full-time work. The appeal of student athletics is that the athletes are university students, so they need to attend classes. However their burden should be decreased during their time of eligibility, and upon completion of their playing period, They should freely complete their studies. Furthermore, a significant fraction of players, including those who sit on the bench, believe that they will become successful professionals. Majority of college players do not focus much on their education since they think they will achieve property once they become professionals. However, they often realize later that they were wrong when it's too late. This proposal would enable such students to resume college and pursue an education that would help them get onto a different path to successful life (Nocera, 2016).
This suggestion has its flaws though. An obvious challenge is whether this plan the rule of carving out the men's football and basketball player for exceptional treatment. Nocera (2016). believes that players within the revenue sports have a different responsibility in the university than other players. Most of them have gained admission to the institution. After all, they will earn income through playing. Nonetheless, this is the condition that may require litigation.
Conclusion
The argument in support or against parting college athletes is still ongoing. Even though there are many vital reasons why student-athletes should be compensated, there are several other reasons to justify why they should not be paid. Compensating college athletes would place most institutions of higher learning in an awful financial straight lead to the cutting of other programs and could eventually unfairly result in inequality in the system of college sports as some institutions would obviously have enough money for spending than others. On the other hand, college athletes are said to be living below the poverty line while they are generating huge profits for their institutions. The decisions by NCAA to either pay college students, or not is not something that can surface now, and because NCAA isn't a profit-making organization, it is not likely to occur. Until anything is decided upon, college athletes would instead follow the actions of their predecessors, that is play that is engaged in sports just for the passion of the game.
References
Baccas, S. (2003). Sportspersonship differences among NCAA Division III track and field athletes.
Borghesi, R. (2016). Pay for Play: The Financial Value of NCAA Football Players. SSRN Electronic Journal. Retrieved on October 20 2017 from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2825281
Clark, K. (2010). The complete idiot's guide to paying for college. New York: Alpha.
Competitive nature of NCAA rules keeps student-athletes from being paid. (2015). College Athletics And The Law, 12(8), 10-11.Retrieved on October 20 2017 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/catl.30146
Dent, J., & Brown, M. (2013). Courage beyond the game. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Mayberry, M. (2013). A Guide to college athletice scholarships. Lexington, KY: MATTMAYBERRYONLINE.COM.
NOCERA, J. (2016). A way to Stat Paying College Athletes. New York Times. Retrieved on October 20 2017 from from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/sports/a-way-to-start-paying-college-athletes.html
Winfree, J. (2012). College Athletes and NCAA Violations. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(4), 661-663. Retrieved on October 20 2017 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00850.x