For the last century, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has been around to publicize and exemplify the best of college athletics. The rise of college sports has grown immensely from when the NCAA was created in 1910 and is now more popular than professional sports in many parts of the United States. This rise in popularity leads to the rise in fame for high profile NCAA athletes. In 2014, the NCAA generated close to a billion dollars in revenue yet the athletes responsible for this surge of money received zero dollars. (Reed 1) The NCAA believes their athletes are amateurs so they are not allowed to receive money. Yet what the NCAA doesn’t see is the horrible postion they put their athletes in while controlling all aspects of their life. How is this fair? The only solution to this problem is that NCAA athletes be able to receive endorsements or signing deals with or from outside organizations. 

There is a strong argument for paying college athletes but how to pay them is the trouble. The universities nor NCAA should be responsible for paying their athletes because it is impossible to equalize pay for athletes of different sports and different calibers. At each university in the country there are certain sports that are responsible for bringing in more money than others therefore paying all college athletes the same amount would not make sense. If universities were to pay their athletes on a scale based on how much revenue their teams bring to the school lawsuits would be filed because the university would be showing favoritism.  These athletes would also then be considered employees of the university. Though division I athletes are treated as employees due to the demand from their coaches and rules they must follow paying them would cause them to no longer be amateurs. In order for athletes to remain amateurs, while receiving the monetary compensations they deserve, they should be allowed to commercialize themselves and market themselves to receive endorsements (Smith&Bayless).

Around 30 years ago the international Olympic community decided that Olympic athletes will be allowed to receive signing deals, ads, and endorsements from outside companies (Sharp 4). They changed the Olympic bylaws so athletes who were training their whole life for a shot in the Olympics did not have to take a vow of poverty in doing so (Jennings 3). Prior to this rule change there was a scandal with an athlete named Jim Thorpe. He had won gold medals in the decathlon and pentathlon during the 1912 Olympic games (Sharp 5). He then got his medals taken away because the Olympics found out that he had played two seasons with a semi-professional baseball team prior to his debut in the Olympics (Sharp 5). This act shined a negative light on the Olympics for punishing someone for trying to earn extra cash in order to prepare for the biggest moment of their lives. Though the Olympics gave his medals back almost 70 years later the reason behind them being taken away was unfounded (Sharp 5). Since the Olympics changed their rules on this stance there has been no negative repercussions. In fact, it has helped the Olympics in popularity and revenue because the world sees the competitors on their televisions in commercials and ads. The Olympics have not lost a single penny from this rule change nor are the athletes looked at differently (Greene).

The Olympics have only seen success from allowing their athletes to receive endorsements so the road is paved for the NCAA to follow in their footsteps. A similar situation took place around 13 years ago with University of Southern California’s star running back Reggie Bush. He was awarded the Heisman trophy in 2005 for his incredible stats and ability to put his football program on the map. Five years after his award it was asked back by the NCAA due to violations of him and his family receiving “lavish gifts” such as limousine rides (Sharp 5). The University of Southern California had to complete disaffiliate from Bush and remove all of his accomplishments at the university. The university also got sanctions taken against them such as wins taken back and inability to recruit new players for multiple seasons. The amount of resources, time, and effort used in this situation is hard to believe. Bush was more than advantageous to his university by increasing their popularity and improving their sports programs.  He created more revenue for University of Southern California yet they treated him as a criminal and embarrassment. The NCAA is stuck on the idea that college athletes are “amateurs” yet they are looked at on campus as celebrities much like Reggie Bush was. Their faces are posted to promote athletics and they are the reason for athletic revenue. These are not qualities that true amateurs should have.

The definition of an amateur is “a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than financial benefit or professional reason” (Merriam-Webster). High-profile college athletes do not fit this definition. Athletes who play in front of crowds that are not paying to see them such as high school athletes or kids playing in summer leagues are actually amateurs. High-profile college athletes do not fit this definition. There are a lot of college athletes that are playing a sport for the pleasure and love of it. Yet the ones talked about in the news and publicized on television for bringing success to their university are playing for another reason; they are playing because they must in order to advance their career. 

There is a clear divide between amateurism in high school and amateurism in college but in respects to money compensation these athletes are treated the same.  A prime example of how college athletes are seen as amateurs would be the March Madness men’s basketball tournament. It is one of the most anticipated and popular events in the athletic world. It is a month-long event of college basketball teams facing off to see who will become the national champions. People around the world make brackets on their predictions of who will win and bets are made. These athletes are put in the spotlight and watched carefully throughout this tournament. The issue arises of how these athletes are portrayed, as amateurs or professionals. In all aspects, except one, they are seen as professionals. The tickets to see these games begin at $200 and as the games progress the ticket prices increase to thousands of dollars. The NCAA makes millions of dollars off of this tournament each year and the popularity is only growing. In 2016, there were 16 million brackets submitted to the ESPN tournament challenge which shows the high interest in the event (Smith&Bayless).  As for high school basketball games, they are free for admission even to see the most elite basketball programs. It is crazy to think that high school basketball players and college basketball players are both considered amateurs after comparing how much revenue they are creating.

 High school athletes are heavenly encouraged to attend college before they attempt a professional career. There is a clear divide between amateurism in high school and amateurism in college but in respects to money compensation these athletes are treated the same. 

The NBA requires prospective athletes to be 19 years old to participate in the draft which means they can sit out a year after graduating high school or go to college (“Remaining eligible: professional draft inquiries”). This bylaw was put into place to force high school athletes to attend college even though many of them play at a high enough level to hold their own in the pros. The upside to this is that athletes have at least one year of college under their belt in case one day their athletic careers end and they have to make a living in a realm other than sports (Sharp 2). A downside is that these athletes are forced to put themselves in a position to get injured and ruin their careers before they can receive any money (Sharp 3). As for the NFL, they require graduation from a “recognized college or university” or to sit out for four NFL seasons post high school graduation to be eligible to participate in the NFL combine (“NFL regional combine”). No athletes are willing to sit out four years so 99% of high school football players with dreams of going into the NFL attend college for four years. They must put their bodies through a beating for no monetary reward. 

But what about their education? Doesn’t that count for something? Val Ackerman and Larry Scott believe that athletes go to college to grow up, learn, and receive a degree. Athletes receive thousands of dollar’s worth of school apparel because they are told to be representing their school with at least one piece of clothing every day (Ackerman&Scott). Many large SEC or ACC schools have alternate gyms and areas of the school just for athletes (Ackerman&Scott).  Athletes also receive more academic help than the rest of the students on campus because their tutors who work around their practice and game schedules. For the athletes that receive full tuition scholarships the monetary comparison is close to $250,000 over the course of four years (Parrish 1). Yes, that sounds like a lot of money but if these players were able to be drafted they would be receiving at least quadruple that amount of money. An education is important but to fool oneself and say that high-profile athletes are going to college to receive an education is not accurate. For example, high school basketball players who are being recruited by top universities such as Duke, Kentucky or Kansas are not looking at the academics part of each school because many of them do not have the grades to get into these schools as non-athletes (Parrish 3). Their choice of school is based off of how well they were recruited and how athletically successful they will be there. If the athletes are not going to school based on the academics than their educations are being put second to athletics before they even arrive. To argue that they are being compensated by receiving a free education does not make sense because they are not there for that.  

Since athletics come first for most division I athletes the majority of their time is devoted to practicing and playing their sport. In a Business Insider article about lawsuits filed against the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill two football athletes felt that they were getting exploited by their university and team (Jacobs 2). Per NCAA bylaws athletes are not allowed to spend more than twenty hours a week practicing while in season (Mueller 72). These two UNC athletes claimed to have been spending more than forty hours a week on practices and workouts. According to a 2011 NCAA survey conducted, baseball players spent an average of 42.1 hours a week on their sport, men’s basketball spent 39.2 hours a week, men’s football spent 43.3 hours a week, and women’s basketball spent 27.6 hours a week (Jacobs 3). How was the NCAA and university getting away with this blatant disregard for the bylaw? The investigation determined that any “voluntary” workouts or activities do not count towards the twenty hours a week rule. Yet, athletes who skip these voluntary workouts are punished by threats to playing time or looked at as disrespectful by their coaches (Jacobs 2). The NCAA also determined that visits with a trainer, film study, weight-lifting, conditioning, and meetings with the team are not counted towards the twenty hours (Jacobs 2). Athletes were only accredited three hours for game days where in reality, game days are closer to 24 hours due to travel, preparation and post-game activities. These athletes are workers; they give whatever time they are asked of by their team or coach to their sport and everything else comes second.

Due to the significant time and effort athletes are forced to give to their sports they deserve compensation. The only way to compensate for this is to allow college athletes to receive endorsements from alternate parties and organizations. There have been multiple cases in the last few years of college athletes secretly receiving endorsements such as Johnny Manziel. He was the first freshman to ever receive the Heisman award which is the most prestigious award in college football (Berkes, 2013). He was suspended half of a game while at Texas A&M University for signing autographs (Berkes, 2013). It was determined that Manziel did not receive money from signing these autographs but knew that they would be sold for money. Nonetheless he was still forced to sit out half of a game. In this case the player was not even trying to receive money for his autographs but there have been many college athletes struggling for money that turn to this type of behavior just to get by. Arian Foster, who was a running back at the University of Tennesse and later on NFL player, shared in a documentary that there were multiple occasions where he did not have any food in his dorm room. He was on a full ride scholarship at the University of Tennessee playing in front of over 100,000 paying spectators yet struggled to scrounge up money for food (“Schooled: The Price of College Sports”). If college athletes were allowed to receive endorsements the likelihood for them to partake in actions to secretly get money would decrease and their chances of staying in college longer would increase. 

Many division I college athletes in football and basketball come from low income families so their need to get into the NBA or NFL and receive the money that comes with that is significant.

 The National College Players Association released a report in 2013 showing that 86% of college athletes live below the poverty line (Hayes 1). Due to extensive practice and workout schedules it is close to impossible for Division I athletes to be able to maintain a job. In Andrew Zimbalist’s article, the average Division IA school earned around $459,000 in sponsorship and signage income in 1995, $96,000 in team and program advertising and sales, and $833,000 in miscellaneous funds from the NCAA. These numbers are based on all the schools in the country but the larger and more advanced college programs received much more. The amount of money circulating in the college athletic world is much higher now. In the last 20 years the popularity, ticket prices, and success of the NCAA has only increased yet the athletes are still not allowed to receive money off of themselves whereas these universities are making millions (Greene, 2012). 

In the most simple terms, the NCAA is limiting the rights of their athletes. Division I basketball and football are the two leading producers of revenue for universities around the country due to their popularity, yet those athletes are hurt the most. In the documentary “Schooled: The Price of College Sports” a division I football player compared the treatment of college athletes to indentured servants where they receive food, accomodations and training. Taylor Branch, who is a historian of the civil rights movements and is now one of the leading critic of the NCAA law against athletes commercializing themselves, believed that college athletes are denied the right to earn a living. In no other realms are college students denied this. College students who are artists are allowed to sell their work, snowboarders are allowed to compete in competitions for money, and musicians are allowed to play gigs for money while still in school. The rights of student-athletes are the only ones hindered.

Universities tend to do well by their athletes by giving them scholarships that cover their entire tuition. This does not make their time at college free though. They do not receive spending money which leads athletes to look for money in alternate places. They are being forced to attend college in hopes of one day becoming professional athletes and make money. Until then letting them commercialize themselves would compensate for their hard work and success they bring to their universities. 

College is an important step in becoming a professional athlete and it is important for athletes to attend college so they have a backup in case they have a career ending injury. If the NCAA were to change their bylaws to allow athletes to receive endorsements and monetary compensation they would be able to keep their athletes in college longer which would be beneficial for all parties involved.  
