by Brandon Uram, Op-Ed Participant
All of this is cloaked under
the oxymoronic, PR-department created phrase “student-athlete.” This anachronistic model may have been
feasible back when profits weren’t in the hundreds of millions of dollars, but
now, everyone wants to wet their beak, and the only ones prevented from going
to the well are the kids who are actually making all of this money. Take a look
at what the average Division-1 athletic director makes. After you pick your jaw from the floor, go
ahead and glance at typical head coach salaries. So while NCAA president Mark Emmert rakes in
a cool $1.6 million this year, the athletes are given a $250 stipend. Thanks so much, NCAA bureaucrats!
It may all unravel soon for the
NCAA, the billion-dollar collegiate sports enterprise, as a class-action
lawsuit barrels down the road. O’Bannon v. NCAA could finally force
payments for the “student-athletes,” the ones that generate all derived
revenues, which are solely enjoyed by the universities and administrators.
Public support for the NCAA’s “student-athlete”
model has been waning for years, but the camel’s back looks like it’s about to
break.
How is it justifiable that
college kids, many of whom come from impoverished backgrounds, are prevented
from making a single dime from their athletic endeavors? Worse yet, how are these
colossal universities able to sell their players’ likeness and talents through
jersey sales, memorabilia, and other licensed products?
 |
| © NYTimes/Sara Cwynar |
Now, I’m not saying that
coaches and ADs shouldn’t make six or seven figures. After all, we’re not communists—I’m a
believer in the free-market, and I think that they should rake in whatever the
market will bear; but, the coaches and administrators, aren’t operating in a truly
free market. Hell, it isn’t even a
competitive market—it’s an artificial monopoly.
These salaries are held up at the expense of the players. If, after players are compensated for their
talents, schools still want to pony up and pay Nick Saban $5 million-plus per
year, be my guest. If Alabama believes
that that’s the fair market value and that they can still see a hefty return,
then I’m all for it. Just pay the
players what they are entitled to.
Then, there’s this ever-reliable
straw man argument: “But the players are paid with their scholarships, and
dammit, they should be grateful!” Sure,
the scholarship is definitely a benefit and obviously has some ascertainable
value—not going to argue with that—but why are athletes the only ones on campus
who are prevented from using their talents and making a buck? If, for example,
School X gives a music scholarship to Y, Y can book performances if there’s a
demand and make a profit. No need to stop this, says the NCAA; the concerns
only arise when it’s trying to protect the games in the name of amateurism, administrator short-hand for
“we’re not sharing.”
Back to the O’Bannon case. A former UCLA star is suing to collect profits
made by the NCAA and its licensed video game maker (EA Sports) for using his
name and likeness, after he had graduated.
The NCAA argues that, when players sign the 20-plus pages of mandatory
red-tape, releases, and waivers, it essentially owns an athlete-employee’s likeness for eternity. If you refuse to sign all of the forms, you
are barred from ever competing collegiately.
Not a whole lot of room for the players to negotiate. I’m no Dr. John Murray, but that sounds like
a contract of adhesion to me…unconscionable about sums up the NCAA’s stance on
compensating its athlete-employees.
If the players could somehow
organize and boycott a major championship or tournament—perhaps this March—they
could grind the NCAA to a halt. They
could force them to pony up something, anything. But, this is extraordinarily unlikely, so,
for those of us expecting justice, we’ll have to wait until it’s forced upon
the NCAA.
Here’s to holding out hope that
U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken finds in favor of the ever-uncompensated
“student-athletes.”
If you don’t believe
that the athletes—the ones who make the
NCAA a billion-dollar conglomerate—are entitled to any revenues, you’re either
(1) jealous, (2) ignorant, or (3) both. There’s no wiggle-room here. Wise
up. The kids have already earned it, now
let them enjoy it.
