The NCAA has always prided itself on fostering the highest level of competitive play while maintaining amateurism to ensure education as a top priority. But in light of recent scandals, the concept of amateurism – athletes playing without pay – is being put under fire.
The NCAA has been hitting athletes and programs with sanctions in order to maintain amateurism but has been recently met with backlash. The prime example was the organization's attempt to suspend Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel for allegedly giving his autograph away for money. ESPN analyst Jay Bilas noticed that the NCAA was selling Manziel's jersey online and tweeted about the NCAA being hypocritical by profiting on players' names while they can't do so themselves.
The NCAA defines itself as a non-profit organization competitive play while maintaining education and human growth. How non-profit are they really though? The NCAA generates hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and donates all but four percent, which they use for investments.
The issue is not about the NCAA being non-profit. It is rather an ideological debate about their stance on amateurism in college sports. The NCAA takes the stance that in order to be eligible to play, athletes must maintain amateur status. This means that college students cannot receive any additional money for their services. This seems simple when you think about it, but it isn't.
The issue turns into an amateurism vs. capitalism debate. America believes in the free market system, a system that is characterized by a competitive market and motivated by profit. This is the key problem: should the NCAA benefit from players' names while they themselves cannot?
The problem lies not with the average athlete who uses the NCAA in order to receive an education but with that extremely small percentage that goes pro. These players are necessary for the success of their institutions and are more valuable than the average athlete. Is it fair that Johnny Manziel, a player who brings millions of dollars in merchandise sales alone to his university, is not allowed to profit from his own name?
These high-caliber players are worth more than the general room and board. The worth of the prominent football teams proves this point. Prominent players bring up attendance and merchandise sales.
Look at the University of Georgia (UGA) Bulldogs football program for example. Forbes magazine currently values the "Dawgs" at 99 million dollars and states that they generated 52 million dollars in profit from last season. The team's athletes are working 60-hour weeks to stay above of the competition. Without them, UGA wouldn't generate millions of dollars to fund other teams and academic programs.
What can the NCAA do to promote justice? The potential solutions are controversial.
The first solution is to begin paying players, but this would cause more problems than it would solve. The principal problem would concern how to manage payouts. It would be nearly impossible to have individual colleges pay athletes without decimating the entire system. It would destroy the recruiting process and eliminate fairness in the game, giving unfair advantages to teams that can write the biggest checks.
The second approach states that college players are given enough. The value of receiving a scholarship in order to finance education is priceless. The truth is that less than two percent of college athletes go pro (baseball is the exception with 11 percent). The NCAA is used to achieve an affordable higher education for most athletes. That is the primary goal.
Nonetheless, it is clear that some players deserve compensation for their enormous contributions to their university. The question is how to give it to them without corrupting the system.
The compromise would be to allow players to legally sign with agents and make money separate from the university. This would keep the pressure off the various colleges while giving a way for players to benefit from their own name. Players who are worth more will make more. This maintains an Olympic style of amateurism, where athletes make money from endorsements and signings, and not from the programs themselves. Could the answer be this simple? Probably not.
Once again many issues would arise, the biggest being taking the emphasis away from education. The NCAA wants to be known for giving college athletes a chance to compete and allowing them to achieve a higher education at the same time.
Allowing players to make money on the side distorts both this viewpoint and the goal of emphasizing education.
Is there a right answer when it comes to paying amateur athletes? Undoubtedly, many people are not happy with the current situation, but it would be really hard to replace the current system without jeopardizing college sports as a whole. The NCAA has some serious decisions to make; hopefully they'll end up being the right ones.
– By Michael Scheck
Photo courtesy of Matt Velasquez, Flickr
