------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of my friends at UConn Law recently wrote an article for the Connecticut Law Review in which she argued that NCAA athletes ought to be paid. Her main rationale was that because NCAA athletes generate massive revenues for the colleges at which they play, they should receive a share of the profit.
I couldn't disagree more. A full athletic scholarship is more than sufficient compensation, especially for the few student-athletes who turn pro. I understand that players such as Tim Tebow, Greg Oden, and Candace Parker are worth far more to their colleges than the value of their athletic scholarships. I also understand that the NCAA has become a highly commercialized industry. But let's look at the practical difficulties associated with paying NCAA student-athletes.
First, student-athletes are already being paid. NCAA colleges award more than $1.5 billion in scholarships every year. And the future value of the education received is even higher. How much more money will Luke "Don't Call Me Farva" Harangody make with a degree from Notre Dame than if he never escaped the McDonald's fry cooker? Besides, what about a women's volleyball player at Holy Cross? Do you think she generates more money for HC than she receives in the form of a full scholarship? No way. The education is far more valuable.
Second, a student-athlete who needs more money than his full scholarship provides has other resources. The NCAA Special Assistance Fund and the Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund provide financial resources so that colleges do not have to pay their players. Even if these two programs are not enough, athletes can apply for student loans. That's what all of us "regular" students have to do. Borrow money from the government to buy ramen noodles just like everyone else!
Third, there is the workers' compensation issue. Monetary compensation would place student-athletes under the definition of an "employee" in most states. Funding workers' compensation will cost schools money, since they would need to purchase insurance coverage. This would be especially problematic in some states, like Nevada, that specifically include college athletes in their definition of an "employee."
Fourth, there is the problem of unionization. Paying student-athletes would make them "wage earners" under the National Labor Relations Act. As wage earners, student-athletes would have the right to unionize and to engage in collective bargaining. All university policies and procedures would be negotiable, including the amount of pay, rules regarding transfers, practice regulations, and curriculum requirements. The NLRA might even allow student-athletes to strike. Imagine having to cancel the Final Four because the four teams decided to strike in order to force the schools to raise the players' stipend or salary. It is a terrifying thought. It cannot be allowed.
Fifth, what about tax law? Colleges don't pay tax on income directly related to carrying out their educational mission. But they are taxed on unrelated business income at the usual corporate rate. If student-athletes were paid, athletic programs probably would not be considered "substantially related" to the college's tax-exempt purposes, and thus college athletics would lose the tax-exempt status they currently have.
Sixth, schools will have trouble paying their student-athletes. In 2006, only 19 of the 119 Division 1-A football schools generated more revenue than expenses. As for the other 100 schools, the median net loss was $8.9 million. Paying student-athletes would require schools to cut other costs. Imagine the University of Texas School of Law firing a contracts professor because Mack Brown needs to pay a prized running back more than the University of Oklahoma is offering. Again, a terrifying thought. This sort of competition, if left unregulated, would destroy any hope of achieving parity in the NCAA. Not to mention the corruption. Remember "Happy" from the movie "Blue Chips"? Every school would have one. Oh my goodness gracious.
Seventh, there are Title IX issues. If schools pay their athletes, Title IX would require them to give female athletes the same or substantially the same amount of compensation as male athletes. Accordingly, to satisfy federal law, colleges may be forced to cut non-revenue-producing male sports.
I am convinced that paying student-athletes would be a disaster. It would widen the gap between the Haves (the University of Florida) and the Have-Nots (Bucknell University), therefore destroying whatever parity currently exists in college sports. It would lead to rampant corruption in the form of under-the-table enticements. And it would eliminate any remaining shreds of amateurism in the NCAA. I know that some student-athletes generate millions for their colleges, while they are left with "only" a free education, but we are talking about a very small percentage of all college athletes. As the TV commercial constantly reminds us, most NCAA student-athletes go pro in something other than sports. Similarly, most NCAA student-athletes are not Tim Tebow and do not generate millions for their schools. So let's treat them like regular students and keep them off the payroll.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great job again by Jay. Thanks again to him! I was always pretty indifferent if they paid student athletes or not but this certainly gives me a whole new perspective on the situation. Less than three weeks until my trip so before--and certainly during--that time you'll be seeing a lot more great posts from Jay.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment