Should College Athletes should be paid

Should College Athletes should be paid

Introduction

Many of the College athletes enjoy the benefits of their participation in the NCAA sports because of getting full scholarships of their school. They also have an opportunity to make a reputation in the sports world and have a chance of playing the big leagues in the country. Although the athletes get scholarships, they should be paid for their skills. This issue has raised and many people including organizations have desired to change the compensation method for the college athletes.

College athletics has been a profitable business in the US for a long time. Annual revenue of about $100 million was generated in 2017 by institutions’ athletic programs. The average revenue from 127 schools in the Division I Football Bowl Subdivision of the NCAA was more than 30 million US dollars from football games only. Even after the earnings from the sports the compensation for a group of student-athletes is limited. The NCAA officials and the coaches included making a lot of riches from the earnings of the sports. The NCAA has rules that college athletes should maintain unprofessional status for them to play NCAA sports. This rule makes the NCAA not to have direct payment to the players but compensate them through scholarship. The rules are known as the Amateurism rules. These rules also prohibit the players from receiving payment for the use of their NILs.

Should College Athletes be paid?

A petition by O’Bannon was filed in 2009 and it stated that the NCAA’s amateurism rules were illegal under the Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The district court came up with a judgment after a 14-day seat trial that the amateurism rules dishonoured Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The court came up with markets that were affected by the amateurism rules that were challenged. These markets include

The college education market; in this market the court discovered that the NCAA schools compete to recruit the best high school players by providing other services another than scholarships. The additional services include; athletic facilities coaching and other opportunities in quality athletic challenges. The court also discovered talented players often attend Division I school and that the athletes do not join the NBA or the NFL directly from high school.

The group licensing market; the court broke these market three submarkets which included: game rebroadcasts, advertisements and archival footage, live game programs and video games. This market requires rights to use the of player’s NILs whereby the court found that the NCAA had licensed the rights to the markets. The NCAA benefited from the revenue received never paid the player for the use of their NILs. The court ruling concluded that the players should be compensated through direct payment for the use of their NILs and as an employer.

The NCAA came up with procompetitive purposes for the justification of the rules to limit the compensation of the players. The NCAA suggests that the maintaining amateurism is important in preserving an academic setting whereby the first priority is to acquire a quality education.  The questions about fairness have risen due to the unequal compensation of the athletes compared to the revenue they generate.

Academics and Athletics integration

The NCAA argued that the compensation rules help the students to work smart in their academic activities. These rules thereby integrating academics and athletics which in turn a quality education will be given to the student. According to the district court, the precompetitive by the NCAA’s rules was worth to affect the college education market, but it argued that the NCAA’s rule s did not result to the academic and athletic integration.

The NCAA rules make a player especially in Division I to participate in their sport for 43.3 hours in a week. The hours are more than what a work in the US works in a week. This affects the attendance of the student-athletes to classes to be poor and for that reason, they should be paid for as their compensation. The court argued that the best way the compensation rules will enable the integration of academics and that of athletics is by limiting large payment to the student-athletes which in turn would remove a social boundary between the student-athletes and other students. The court also held that the students should be paid for the use of their NILs.

 

Output Increase

The NCAA argued that limiting payment to the student’s athletes increased the chances for students to play Division I basketball or FBS football which in turn increase output in the college education market. The NCAA’s rules encourage schools that were unable to compete in Division I to compete with a commitment to the amateurism. This justification was rejected by the court when they found that there were conferences that were held to change the NCAA’s scholarship rules so as to increase the compensation regulations. The court found that schools join the other NCAA Divisions since there are also affected by the same amateurism rules that affect the Division I schools. The court also discovered that the revenue from Division I schools are not shared and that not paying student-athletes did not lead to additional fund for scholarships.

Many of the colleges use the NCAA sports to market their institutions and this has seen many colleges increase their undergraduates’ admission points and their SAT scores during the NCAA season. The players should be perceived as the group that markets the college and that they do not play the sports at their leisure. For this reason, the college athletes should be paid because they reduce the cost of the college would use to build its recognition so as to increase the rate of application and increased admissions.

Balancing competition

The limiting of paying college athletes helps in maintaining competitive balance among the NCAA’s sports as argued by the NCAA before the district court. This was recognized by the court as a valid precompetitive purpose but a conclusion was made that the competitive balance was not promoted by the NCAA rules. The court made their conclusion with the use economists’ research whereby many of them made a conclusion that competitive balance is not the aim of the NCAA’s compensation rules. the court found that the NCAA limited the direct payment to the players but allowed the spending of the revenue earned on other athletic programs, such as coaching

When the NCAA was created in 1905, it opposed the payment for both coaches and the college athletes but over the years the coaches started receiving payments leaving out the players. The NCAA collects huge revenues that can be shared with the players also but most of it goes to the administrators and coaches. Today a coach can be paid an average of 2 million US dollars in a year while the player receives nothing despite their effort in winning the competitions. This is a justification that the college athletes should be paid.

Conclusion

Most athletes get discouraged and feel mistreated because they are not paid for their hard work in the field and that the money they generate benefits, other people. The NCAA sports cannot be held without the athletes and this makes it fair enough for the athletes to receive payments. The college teams might not be at the same level with the professional teams but they have fans who adore them. The NCAA used the player NILs on products such as jerseys and other sportswear but they never pay the players for this. Money received from selling tickets, foods and jerseys during the sports events should also be share to the athletes and their account credited. The Student-athletes should be allowed to have deals in business and endorsement from companies. Most college athletes are limited from such deals by their school. Allowing such deals encourage the athletes to perform well and bring winnings to their schools.

Work cited

http://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2018/article/should-college-athletes-be-paid

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2014/01/30/21-reasons-why-student-athletes-are-employees-and-should-be-allowed-to-unionize/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20150930188

 

 

 

THIS PAPER HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY OUR WRITERS

Order your custom paper

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>