People celebrate day-long, maybe even week-long, holidays such as birthdays or Hanukah; however, have you ever celebrated the roughly month-long holiday every late winter? Of course I am talk about March Madness; the stretch of days during the coldest month of the year where everyone forgets normal Television etiquettes and every single student’s laptop is set to the thrilling games. College Basketball is by far the most popular collegiate athletic event in terms of participation (NCAA). Its programs sign billion dollar televisions deals, and attract almost as many viewers with the high level of competition and presentation. In 2015, the National College Athletic Association, or NCAA, put on its annu1al Final Four National Championship, a tradition since 1939, and saw its highest television rating since 1997 (____). With the NCAA’s popularity ever-increasing, you would think that college basketball would be the perfect destination for a big time basketball prospect; however, recent accusations have the NCAA under extreme scrutiny from the public, the players, and the media. The National Collegiate Athletic Association tries to provide a haven for amateur talents to use their abilities to gain knowledge and graduate college. This noble cause; however, is becoming exploited. The very best athletes are not attending top universities with the intentions of graduation summa cum laude in four years. If you are an elite level athlete, then you are attempting to spend a maximum of two years at a university and gain as much professional NBA exposure as possible. If that’s the mindset of the younger generation, which isn’t necessarily a bad one, then maybe a league of amateurs is not the best path to achieve their goals. Instead, the athletes should want to pursue the path that achieves them the most money. Athletes and lawyers have attempted to persuade the National Collegiate Athletic Association to start thinking of a way to compensate their players; however, after many suits and highly profiled court cases, athletes still don’t receive any money.

To fully understand this problem, one must first fully understand the history of the organization that is the National Collegiate Athletics Association. The NCAA was officially established in 1910 and quickly grew as the primary organization for college sports. They regulate athletes, conferences, programs, and championship games for thousands of teams across the United States. The sport of basketball began integrating into the NCAA during the 1893 season when Vanderbilt University played a local Tennessee Young Men’s Christian Association (NCAA). The first officially credited game is the University of Chicago against The University of Iowa three years later (Sherman). Collegiate basketball became extremely popular and currently houses the most teams out of any sport in the National Collegiate Athletics Association, in both men’s and women’s divisions. The NCAA first began experimenting basketball with live television in 1940, but didn’t start attracting a lot of viewers until the late 1960s. The NCAA did not sign a formal television rights deal until much later though. The first sign of a long-term deal between a television network and the NCAA was when Raycom, a TV production company, and signed a $1.8 million six-week dollar deal for regular season games. Fast forward only twenty years, and the numbers on these television deals have increased at a rapid pace. Currently, the NCAA March Madness tournament, the premier athletic event in all of college basketball, had agreed to a deal with Columbia Broadcasting System for fourteen years and $10.8 billion through 2024 (History). In April 2016, however, the NCAA was able to argue for more money and signed an eight year $8.8-billion-year extension (Sherman). This is the beginning of the problem: the NCAA is receiving billions of dollars of revenue as a non-profit and does not have to pay for its employees. How is this fair as a non-profit organization? Well the National Collegiate Athletic Association states that, “As with the current and previous contract, more than 90 percent of the revenue generated from this extension will be used to benefit college athletes through programs, services or direct distribution to member conferences and schools” (Sherman). That sounds good and all, but that’s a lot of money funding people and organizations that frequently complain about being underfunded. A lot of the funding goes towards other things such as buildings, coaches’ salaries, and tuitions for student-athlete scholarships, but is it really all ninety percent? College basketball is going to continue to grow and expand for years and continue to make more money on future television contracts. 

These lucrative television contracts that the National Collegiate Athletics Association and individual schools each have; however, do not always mean every program turns a profit. If we look solely at the power five conferences – the Big Ten, the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Pacific 12 Conference, the Big 12 Conference, and the Southeastern Conference – we can accurately see how big money TV contracts affected programs. The power 5 conferences are the programs most likely to have a television contract throughout the entire regular season. Between 2004 and 2014, forty-eight out of the sixty-one power 5 conference programs saw their annual earnings surge by nearly 2 billion; however, in 2014 twenty-five departments still turned a deficit (College). A majority of these schools still need to request student fees earmarked for sports. These fees have increased in total from $95 million to $114 million in power five conferences between 2004 and 2014 (College). How is this possible? How are these schools not at least breaking even? Well even extremely popular and well-funded programs such as the University of California – Los Angeles may not turn a profit because of the arms race currently happening in football and basketball programs of power five conferences. Major programs feel the need to compete with one another for the flashiest, best facilities and stadiums: “This is a competitive race among some of the biggest universities in this country to compete and achieve at the highest level,” Rutgers Athletic Director Julie Hermann said (College). In September 2015, Auburn revealed a brand spanking new high definition screen at one of their facilities, which cost around $14 million dollars (College). That’s a lot of money for a program that lost over $15 million the year prior (NCAA). The thought process is that if program A has nicer facilities and nicer stadiums and better coaches than program B then it will be more profitable and make more money. So, where does the spending stop? When will the programs and the NCAA stop thinking about their own facilities and worry about the people using them? Colleges like Michigan and Florida State have all experienced at least $60 million increase in revenue, but have yet to turn a profit (College). A program like Oregon, on the other hand, has increased its revenue, but not its spending $60 million more dollars on fancy display screens and new fields. Instead they only spend roughly have of their revenue; therefore, they created $83.5 million in profit. If schools would take a break from spending millions on various amenities, and possibly consider funding their athletes, they could probably figure out a way. The public is becoming wary about how the lack of profit may not be because of mounting expenses, but instead because of bloated spending. The NCAA and its programs are basically throwing themselves under the bus to not pay their own players. 

Players do still reap benefits from college basketball. They receive at least a year of education, housing, some food monthly, and access to state of the art facilities, as aforementioned. Yet, how much are they losing? People can say they cheer for colors and name on the front of the jersey rather than the back, but after recent increase the effort put into college basketball recruiting, not to mention the increase of middle school basketball scouting, it is hard to imagine that college athletes’ personal brands don’t matter. In the 21st, athletes have begun to fight back against the big programs and the NCAA. The first such incidence was the case of Edward O’Bannon vs. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Collegiate Licensing Company. Edward O’Bannon, an ex-UCLA basketball player, sued the National Collegiate Athletic Association for the use of image of student-athletes that have graduated from the programs (Megan). The argument was originally that former student-athletes should receive compensation for appearances and use of likeliness in video games, merchandise, etc. This then led to the argument that current student-athletes should receive similar compensation. One side believes that “student-athletes shall be amateurs in an intercollegiate sport, and their participation should be motivated primarily by education and by the physical, mental and social benefits to be derived” (Megan). The other believes that “Student-athletes are meant to be students first and athletes second, however, they arguably spend all of their time outside the classroom training for their respective sports” (Megan). Both sides believe that the athletes should focus on school primarily and athletics secondarily; however, that is just not the reality of the situation anymore. Athletes are not going to college with the intentions of graduating with a degree; consequently, they are not putting their upmost effort into academics. They are spending and increasing amount of time at athletic requirements like practice, lifting sessions, and game film. In a study in 2010, Division I basketball athletes stated they spend around thirty-five hours a week on academic requirement, but ten to fifteen more hours a week on basketball responsibilities (Megan). The reality of the state of a college athlete is that they are required to do so much more the university they attend that it is very easy to make the argument that they should be rewarded with compensation. If the amount of scholarship and other small benefits was totaled and compared to the number of hours sacrificed by an athlete, would it be considered fair pay? It is very doubtful. 

The numbers are not in the players’ favor. They are seeing billions of dollars being spent in front of their eyes, but they are not able to touch it. They are being coached by someone who, on average, make almost a quarter of what the program makes, but they don’t get paid for executing his game plan. Some of these athletes are scheduled to make sign contracts in excess of $10 million in less than a year once they are drafted by an NBA organization, which is standard for lottery-pick rookies. In the 2015 National Basketball Association Draft, twenty-one first year entrants were taken in the first round and ten more in the second round (Wire). A NBA rookie deal is always the same because it is structured on a tier scale. Every single pick has a certain value. The first pick is worth about $12 million dollars during two years, the second pick worth round $11 million, the third pick worth $10.5 million, and it continues to drop exponentially in price (Belzer). Even the very last pick of the first round of the 2015 NBA Draft was guaranteed to make at least $2.5 million during his first two years under contract. These numbers don’t account for whether or not the teams decide to pick up the two-year team option on the rookie or not. The two-year team option extends the base contract for two more years and more than doubles the base salary (Belzer). This is the type of money that is waiting for a number of the athletes in the power five conferences. Although the odds are indeed slim, any athlete receiving high Division I scholarship offers can almost assure himself he is going to see some sort of big check coming his way. Players like Ben Simmons or Skal Labissiere, both premier high school prospects who came to college, performed below expectations during their single college seasons. Shouldn’t their poorer than scouted play affect their draft status? It didn’t. Simmons was able to right his ship so to speak and received the first overall pick, while Labissiere was picked up later. Both teenagers are now receiving well over $1 million this year in payment for services they got paid nothing for a year earlier. These athletes are basically donating a year’s salary to a program pro bono. This loss of money, that many athletes desperately need, is one reason why athletes have begun seeking out other avenues besides college. 

Some athletes have begun exploring extra opportunities after high school, that might make them that much richer before they sign their lucrative deal. Since the new NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement in 2005, players have been made to wait a year post high school to enter the Draft; consequently, eager athletes find other ways to enter the professional ranks as early possible. In June 2008, Brandon Jennings became the first American high school basketball to sign with a foreign professional team out of high school instead of playing for a college team – he was previously signed with University of Southern California (Thamel). He signed with an Italian team for a contract worth $1.65 million and ended up earning another $2 million Under Armor, another ability college student-athletes don’t have (Thamel). Similar to aforementioned Ben Simmons and Skal Labissiere, Brandon Jennings posted meager statistics during his sole year with the French club, but was still picked 10th in the next NBA Draft since he was eligible. A couple years later, another soon to be collegiate superstar, Emmanuel Mudiay, chose to sign with a Chinese club for over $1 million rather than play at SMU (Sports). The next year, Mudiay was chosen with the seventh overall selection in the NBA Draft after a subpar year in China; he is currently making over $4 million a year (Sports). Even this past year, high school senior Terrance Ferguson decided to forego his freshman year at University of Arizona and sign with an Australian team for an undisclosed amount (Star). Ferguson is impressing a little bit in his sole season in Australia, but he is expected to declare for the NBA Draft, where he is projected to go in the top fifteen (Star). These examples are shown to demonstrate just how similar the destination of these two different paths are. Both players that attended college or signed overseas, can play close to miserably the entire season, and still wind up making millions of dollars a year; therefore, what benefit did the players who go to college receive? They may experience some life-changing college experience (I sure have), but most likely these athletes will spend their time in the classroom or on the hardwood. If a high school athlete goes through the recruiting process thinking that college is his only option, then he has cheated himself. Considering overseas as an elite level athlete is not a bad option by any means. There are a lot of extra questions that need to be asked about playing basketball in a foreign country, but if the opportunity to make money playing basketball, which is the athlete’s final goal, is on the table, then why wouldn’t they take it? 
