The business of college athletics has exploded into a financial powerhouse over the years. In the center of this enormous enterprise stand the student-athletes, the workhorses of the entire infrastructure of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Recently, I have taken great interest in the system of college athletics and the controversies surrounding the student athletes. I am a Freshman student at the University of South Carolina’s Darla Moore School of Business. I became immersed in the world of collegiate sports prior to enrolling in this university. I am the youngest child who watched both of my older sisters attend the University of Connecticut. I watched them experience numerous national championships at their university with envy. These accomplishments brought their school together as one extremely united fan base. Because of my family exposure with college sports, I learned about its value to a school and in turn chose a school with big time athletics. Those who follow college athletics are likely to hear arguments pertaining to whether the NCAA’s athletes should receive salaries or not. Following my curiosities, I have investigated deeper into how college athletics works, specifically in the world of an athlete. After learning how the industry is run, I believe the NCAA is exploiting their athletes by limiting their educational and financial opportunities as hardworking students. Those who may seek details of this argument are: college students, student athletes, families, fans, university employees/administrators, as well as the NCAA player’s association. The University of South Carolina provides me with the passion, interactions, and experiences to deliver a credible argument that this exploitation should no longer be overlooked. As a student, these athletes are seen everywhere on campus. South Carolina is nationally known for our athletics, more specifically for strong football, basketball, and baseball programs. My passion for college athletics has lead me to extensive research of how the NCAA works, what is wrong with the association, and how to possibly fix the future of college athletics. 

One must be informed of the current state and history of the National Collegiate Athletic Association prior to addressing any sort of exploitation. I think the policies, statistics, and finances of the NCAA are important to be acknowledged before any aspect of my argument is made. The NCAA is an organization that runs college athletics through a committee of members that claim dedication “to the well-being and lifelong success of college athletes” (NCAA). This association is the heartbeat of college sports in America and stands to protect, preserve, and promote the opportunity of a student-athlete. All NCAA athletes are considered amateurs and cannot compete if they break the organization’s extensive list of regulations and rules. Most of these rules are designed with the goal of keeping all college athletes as amateurs. The concept of amateurism is defined by the organization as a “membership established process [that brings] about national uniformity and fairness” (NCAA). The coveted student-athlete opportunity consists of the difficult job of being premier sportsmen while simultaneously earning a college degree. In terms of its size, there are currently almost half a million student-athletes that create “approximately 19,500 teams in the NCAA” (“How”). Running this massive organization is undoubtedly a difficult task but it seems that a consistent stream of high finances has allowed the NCAA to continually operate. Controversies are not a new thing for the NCAA to deal with. There have been six major court cases involving the National Collegiate Athletic Association over the past 30 years (“Important”). These cases all involve a challenge between a school or a student and the NCAA’s policies, actions, or operations. As time has passed, the verdicts of these cases have undoubtedly shaped the NCAA into its current state. The most notable change was made following the White vs. NCAA in a 2008 case where verdict found that some athletes are now eligible to receive money for health insurance or “for [funding] further education” (“Important”). Despite many changes over the years, the extensive protection of amateurism and strict policies within college athletics have still withstood the NCAA’s 100+ years of operation (Editors).

Although most of the NCAA’s values have remained the same, a lot has been changing in the world of college athletics in recent years. Legally, the NCAA is currently involved in five major judicial cases that are “pending” or “currently in discovery” (“Important”). This predicament reveals the timeliness of my topic. It appears that things are off track with the NCAA and people are calling for change. Financially, college athletics has exploded into a multibillion dollar industry. This appears to be the likely the driving force behind many problems within the NCAA. College athletics generates approximately “$13 billion a year” (Nocera). This money is produced in ticket sales, broadcasting, gambling, merchandising, advertising, along with many other moving parts around the world of college sports. The NCAA itself annually “generates over $900 million in revenue” (Nocera) which means that the NCAA annually “makes more money than the National Football League” (“How”). These numbers were staggering to me when I first discovered them and I am going to assume that any reader would agree. The sheer amounts of money moving around college sports today clearly reflects a recent economy boom in America as well as an exponential increase in NCAA’s sports fans. The acknowledgement of a financial explosion and current policies of the college sports industry leads me to the development of my argument pertaining to the issue of neglect regarding how its players are treated within the NCAA. 

Revealing and addressing the current exploitation and mistreatment of student athletes is very complex because the industry of college athletics is so vast. Because of this, there are different aspects to my argument of exploitation that must be revealed before I can offer a possible proposal for improvement. A freshman track runner at the University of South Carolina named Matt Froschauer will first illustrate the notion of mistreatment by sharing his first-year experiences and opinions as a student athlete of the NCAA. Following the elaboration of Matt's missed opportunities as an NCAA athlete, I will transition to UConn’s coveted Shabazz Napier and how he was abused by the lucrative system of the NCAA. From the unfairness in regards to player abilities, we will dive into the financial world of the NCAA where such a profitable organization is cheating the very students that make them money. The financial world of college athletics creates problems with amateurism and the value of a college education as a student athlete. Finally, I will turn my focus on the future of problems with college athletics and what can be done now to preserve the uniqueness of college athletes. A professional organization, such as the NBA, has taken moral measures to financially protect their new players. The actions of the National Basketball Association as well as the National Football League will serve as a call to the NCAA to take some initiative and improve. With such a complicated topic, I do expect some readers to provide counter arguments to my case. A reader may draw an opinion that the allowance of scholarships along with stipends should be more than enough of a reward for the time that a student-athlete puts in. I also anticipate that one might think the value of remaining an amateur athlete outweighs improving the policies towards better rights for student-athletes. 

Mistreatment can come in various forms and degrees. As a student, I have enjoyed developing relationships with some of the athletes in my classes. I have been fortunate enough to become friends with a freshman member of USC Track and Field team named Matthew Froschauer. With goals of receiving a first-hand experience, I interviewed Matt to explore his detailed athletic experience so far at the University of South Carolina and to learn about his exposure to the NCAA’s operation. Froschauer holds a GPA above a 3.5 and seemingly does everything possible to balance his academic and athletic experiences simultaneously. Unlike the stereotypical college athlete, he is enrolled in one of the school’s more difficult business programs with a plan of pursuing a non-sport related career. The young 100 Meter Hurdles runner is competing without a scholarship but emphasizes that running for an SEC school “had been a goal” for him since he was little. In terms of regulations, Matt Froschauer instantly expressed that “it’s hard to feel independent while worrying about their endless rules and policies”. As mentioned before, over the years the NCAA has manifested an extensive list of rules and policies keeping athletes and coaches isolated within college athletics. They control: who they can talk to, how much they can practice, who they can practice with, talk to, eat with, along with many other variables (Froschauer). Despite being a responsible college student, it is as if Matthew still lives under the house rule of strict parents, not to mention he is under the same control as someone receiving a full athletic scholarship.  In terms of regulating an athlete’s schedule, the NCAA has a “weekly 20-hour limit” for a team’s practice time (Jacobs). Matt validates the 20-hour rule and shared that they require teams to hold mandatory study hours each week. He explains “they [the NCAA] tries to keep students academically afloat” (Froschauer). These efforts require all schools to provide study hours, tutors, as well as accommodations to the timing conflicts between athletics and academics. When hearing these positives from Matt, I thought that my goal of revealing mistreatment on various levels of the NCAA was going to be impossible. Instead, it became clear that even a person as compliant to the athletic organization as Matt, is fundamentally exploited and cheated educational and financial opportunities.

When addressing the finances of the NCAA, it is hard to ignore that even Matt’s fleet of track coaches have a combined salary nearing half a million dollars (Clark). Matt describes himself as anything but a superstar but expresses that “there are great opportunities I miss out on because the NCAA is so controlling” (Froschauer). These limitations seem to stunt his academic growth as a student. Although he is putting in full time hours as a student-athlete, Matt doesn’t necessarily think he is cheated of any sort of salary. Instead, he thinks the organization needs to open their policies toward better financial opportunities for student athletes. For example, having the ability to market oneself would be an unbelievable opportunity for a young business student like Matt Froschauer. If track gear is being sold to the public bearing his name and number, Matt thinks he should be able to promote this and receive a small percentage of whatever is sold. This would certainly contribute to the NCAA’s goal of “lifelong success of college athletes” (NCAA). Froschauer’s family and friends would undoubtedly be more inclined to purchase Gamecock gear knowing that he would receive benefits from each purchase. I, too, think this opportunity seems only fair. The NCAA disagrees. Consequently, they take advantage of athletes by keeping them financially in the dark. Allowing marketing opportunities such as this would not interfere with merchandising contracts but would instead simply require the NCAA to allow/make schools track purchases and give respective athletes a small percentage of the sales. Harmless changes, right? One would think so but the NCAA has no intention of changing due to their scapegoat of enforcing amateurism. I personally think it is unethical for an association to think that an amateur status would be considered more beneficial to their undergraduates than enhancing the opportunities of such athletes. NCAA athletes receive absolutely no information or understanding about the finances of their sports. Cases like Matt’s are not isolated to South Carolina and the marketing opportunities could be applied to student athletes all across the country, especially those who are not competing under a scholarship. The policies of the NCAA have made me wonder how many athletes have been abused by this system in the past.

Although I attend school in South Carolina, I was raised in a small town in northern Connecticut where I had a first-hand view of the NCAA’s abuse. In 2014, I watched the University of Connecticut’s Men’s Basketball Team make an extremely improbable run to win the national championship. This incredible achievement was led by the Huskies’ star point guard, Shabazz Napier. Nationally, Napier worked his way into basketball fame through his career performance at UConn. The name Shabazz Napier is still considered basketball royalty when mentioned in the state of Connecticut and I consider him as one of my athletic heroes. The 2014 March Madness tournament itself was valued by CBS/Turner “at $700 million” (Klevorn). Despite such a profitable broadcasting system and a soon to be NBA star in the spotlight, Napier expressed that financial support was desperately needed in his life as a student athlete. After a practice in 2014, Napier explained in an interview that, “sometimes, there's hungry nights where I'm not able to eat, but I still gotta play up to my capabilities” (Fox). Learning of his reality was shocking to me along with many others across the country. Behind the stage of a superstar, sat a poor college athlete that was going to bed hungry. Napier was on a full granted scholarship which included a meal plan that did “not sustain him with even the most basic of life’s necessities –food” (Klevorn). My distaste for these facts was one of the leading motivators in writing my argument about the NCAA’s fundamental exploitation of its athletes. For me, it is hard to fathom that a college star could be so financially deprived that he goes to bed malnourished. This upsetting truth reveals some darkness amongst all the confetti and glamour associated with college sports and national championships. When one reflects on the policies of the NCAA stated earlier, it is easy to see that Shabazz was prohibited from receiving any financial benefits outside of what the University of Connecticut was permitted to provide. This blatant disregard for an athlete's fundamental needs showcases the imbalance between what the athletes receive and the financial profit scale of the NCAA.

As a finance major here at the University of South Carolina, I often find that numbers can at times hold more value than words. I believe this mindset is necessary when considering the astounding finances surrounding my argument within college athletics. The NCAA is currently generating “over $900 million in annual revenue” within the $13-billion-dollar college athletic industry (Nocera). In D1 college athletics, scholarships averaged approximately $15,000 per student athlete this year (O’Rourke). Coaches themselves get a fair share of the money but it ranges pending on the sport. Some lower end head coaches can make a basic five-figure salary meanwhile the coach of the Duke Basketball team, Mike Krzyzewski, makes $10 million (Nocera).  It seems the NCAA protects their belief in amateurism for their own gain. To me, the NCAA’s approach to amateurism eludes to a concept that college is the time for a student athlete to learn themselves and their sport; they can make a profit on their athletic abilities after graduation. The shocking reality and crux of this issue is that only about 5% of college athletes go on to compete at the professional level of their respective sport (Nocera). Even though only a minuscule portion of their athletes go pro, why does the NCAA conceal their players from possible profit along with an educational opportunity within their sport? As I statistically expressed, there has been an exponential financial growth in the world of college athletics but in terms of trends it is not the only one worth mentioning. There are currently growing trends that include skipping the college level of sports and immediately joining leagues that pay their athletes. I personally do not think this is a call for player salaries within the NCAA. Instead, I think the perceived value of an education is declining among athletes hoping to make a profit from their sport.  Some athletes are starting to think the value of being a student athlete over just an athlete is losing its value. Given the percentage of athletes that actually turn pro this is very concerning especially considering our society still holds the value of education in post college success. 

In terms of progression, the NCAA currently has an opportunity to listen to the noise being made within the world of sports around them. The National Basketball Association and their players’ association have been working hard to improve their already strong rookie athlete transition programs over the past few years (Kelser). Their actions are further revealing what many college basketball players are lacking upon their departure from school. Before continuing, I must acknowledge that one may ask why the NBA is relevant to my arguments within college athletics? For clarification, I totally comprehend that a NCAA student athlete is not equal to a NBA pro athlete. Even though college athletics and professional sports lack a 1:1 comparison, they still are important to relate to each other. The NBA’s improvements specifically consist of an extended program with two extra days that further promotes the start of successful careers. This program works towards limiting the “pitfalls that can come with the money and fame” (Krawczynski). The National Basketball Player Association’s director, Purvis Short, expresses that the expansion is a deliberate attempt to further prepare new athletes with “everything they could possibly encounter” (Short). Short’s broad quote of “everything” includes six total days of extensive exercises and seminars surrounding a rookie’s nutrition, media, safety, drugs, relationships, financial management, education, and performance. I was pleasantly surprised when I learned of the detailed support provided to rookies within the NBA. Upon further thought, I realized that many players moving on from the NCAA are insufficiently prepared and the NBA is reacting to this reality. Because of a lack preparation, a professional organization such as the NBA must expand the aid efforts toward their rookies even though many of them did receive a full or partial college education. This reality shows that the NCAA is once again failing to uphold their pledge to support the “lifelong success” of their athletes (NCAA).  Giving aid to rookies should not solely be the responsibility of a professional league. If a career in professional athletics is in a student athlete’s future, then I strongly feel the NCAA should have a responsibility to prepare and assist their transition. After all, the athletes moving to the professional level are proud products and faces of the NCAA’s system. As if this situation was not substantial enough, this past year the National Football League has released that they are also in the process of an “expansion of [their] Rookie Transition Program” (“NFL”). These actions should serve as symbolic massive red flags waving in front of the NCAA offices across the country but seemingly nothing has changed. This is baffling to me because college football and basketball are undoubtedly the most popular as well as most profitable sports within the NCAA. This current position worries me for the future of two of my favorite college sports to watch. If these problems continue, there is a possibility that the trends of non-college leagues or semiprofessional organizations can soon exponentially grow stronger because they may better prepare athletes for their athletic futures. I believe that the recent actions of the NBA and now the NFL can still serve as a wakeup message that calls for the college sports industry to improve simultaneously with the professional sports organizations. Given that many college athletes aspire to turn professional, the NCAA should better prepare them so there is less of a chance of their alumni struggling at the next level. This would be easy to do by simply requiring classes that correspond with what the pro leagues say rookies currently lack. The NCAA should also take more steps to prepare student athletes to succeed outside the professional sports world because only a very small percentage of their athletes actually move on to the professional level. The NBA and NFL have made it clear that there is a need for more transition education for those who have successfully graduated to the professional level.  The NCAA should be mindful of these messages that some of their footing is lacking and the window to improve their efforts is open to them now. 

It would be unreliable of me not to not address opposing views refuting my argument that the NCAA is fundamentally taking advantage of their athletes. The counterargument that scholarships and stipends should be enough compensation for a student athlete is one that must be addressed. Yes, I will grant one the point that a full scholarship is more than enough compensation for some college athletes. In some cases, an individual’s scholarship can hold a value of well over a hundred thousand dollars, this an incredible boon to a family already capable of paying full tuition. The problem with this counterargument is that not all athletes receive full scholarships and sometimes a full scholarship is not sufficient. In fact, the average money given to a student athlete across all three divisions is only “$2,000 to $5,000 per student athlete annually” (Davis). For Shabazz Napier, his full scholarship grant still left him hungry some nights even though he was one of the biggest names in all recent college basketball history. I do realize there are many situations where the student athlete compensations are enough. That is not the point of my argument. There is athletes left behind in this system and that is not a level playing field to me. The NCAA is simply showing that they do not look to the individual needs of their athletes and I find this disturbing. 

There are also people who may think the value of remaining strictly an amateur athlete outweighs any improvement of the NCAA’s policies. With total respect to the conservative concept of not changing a century old concept, I strongly believe that these points of view are exactly what is wrong with the NCAA today. I absolutely recognize that amateurism within college athletics has contributed to the progression of where the NCAA stands today but times are changing in the world of college athletics and so has values/labels. I want to make it clear that I recognize that the National Collegiate Athletic Association provides many opportunities their athletes. There is a problem though. The NCAA is hiding behind their precious amateurism concepts even though they are hurting the very athletes they stand to protect. The problem of athlete exploitation in the NCAA more than just a financial one. Even if it was just about paying athletes, I personally do not think the label of “amateurs” is worth limiting the educational or even some personal opportunities of a college athlete. As listed throughout my argument, the limitations of the NCAA can be found in personal, educational, and health related situations. Any improvement of how student athletes are treated should absolutely hold a priority over a simple label. I strongly believe that the NCAA should be opening many more doors for their student athletes instead of just trying to keep some closed. 

Following my research, I fear that the NCAA could be jeopardizing the future of college sports. Why is this a big deal? Assets like Matthew Froschauer and Shabazz Napier have been deprived of opportunities and necessities despite being “coveted” student athletes. Although these two competitors’ situations are very different, they represent the spread of mistreatment across thousands of dedicated college athletes. Student athletes like them are being cheated of financial and educational benefits and opportunities. These athletes work full time for the entertainment of an entire nation for virtually no slice of the financial pie or any substantial benefits which would further value their education. The NCAA has grown into a financial powerhouse similar to the way banks did when they appeared too big to fail. Their strict policies and regulations clearly limit what athletes can do with their efforts. Upon revealing how little these athletes get, this 13-billion-dollar industry is heading for endangerment. One may wonder what is next if the NCAA does not change the treatment of their players. Today, the future of college athletics is uncertain, but I think it is clear that it cannot prosper indefinitely without change; the exploitation of athletes has only begun to be revealed. I have officially joined the call to “allow [student athletes] to a union representation” that allows them to fight for their own rights without needing something as powerful and difficult as the supreme court (Barbash). This slight policy change will enable players to work with the NCAA as well as professional organizations to work towards a fairer future (Sack). It is time we create some separation between our student athletes and the organization that unfairly controls them. When I cheer on my school in a sporting event, I find that there is a need to know that these athletes are being rewarded for the unbelievable amount of work they put it in. 
