Lipson 1

The Great Debate: Why College Athletes Should Be PaidTanner LipsonApril 30th, 2015Managed Study

Lipson 2

Meet the bagman; he is the booster behind the curtain, the man who will never get

any recognition for his work, but he is the man who will pay thousands of dollars to recruit

an athlete. Meet the student tutor; she is the advisor who will help an athlete meet a

school’s academic standards no matter the consequences. Meet the university, the school

that runs its student athletic department like a business, but fails to recognize its

employees. Meet the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the organization that

reaps the benefits from one of the most profitable industries, but still fails to enlist any sort

of ethics. Now meet the high school athlete, one who has just committed to a large

university with a pocket full of cash and a distorted vision on their future. Over the next

four years this college “student” will be treated like an employee of the university. The

university and the NCAA will exploit the player for profit, but the student will not see a

return on his or her investment. This college athlete will donate more time to athletics than

academics. The big business of college football is one of the most profitable businesses in

America and the players are the product. Now, since these athletes are considered students

and not working employees, the debate on paying players is a complicated one, but the

modern university is run like a company and a company should pay its employees. The

lucrative business of college football and poor NCAA regulations has created the

opportunity for athletes to ultimately be paid as employees. Research shows that if done

responsibly and correctly, college players can get an education while being paid to play

their respected sport.

In this study, I will examine the connection between business and communications

and how it relates to the sports industry. I will delve deeper into the current problems with

Lipson 3

college athletics and how the subjects of business and communications have affected the

college football landscape. This paper will support my thesis through facts, stories, and

statistics. I will quote former players, media members, and athletic directors. I will also

take a look at the other side of this argument and explain why it could be a poor idea to pay

college athletes.

In order to fully grasp the concept of the study, I will need to combine different

broad perspectives that will help further my reasoning on why college athletes should be

paid. Behind supporting facts and anecdotes, I will combine different academic disciplines

by integrating different schools of thought to take multiple insights on one subject. By

combining the separate studies of business and communications, I will be able to

successfully dispute any claim against my argument on paying college athletes.

Are college athletes students or employees? There are many ways to look at this

argument and many factors that equate to whether college athletes are students or

employees of the school. First, one must determine what constitutes a student. College

athletes who commit to their school for a sport devote 43 hours a week to their own

respected sport, which is more than an average workweek. This is the same as a student

having a full-time job while trying to succeed in class. That is doable, but a regular student

is getting paid for their time compared to the college athlete’s non-paying position.

As the pressure increases to pay athletes, certain conferences are performing their

own studies in order to collect data on an athlete’s schedule. The Pacific-12 (Pac-12)

Conference wants to be prepared when the final case against the NCAA is taken to court. In

the past year, the Pac-12 conducted a study on 409 student-athletes, 50 percent women

Lipson 4

and 50 percent men. The students were spread across nine different universities

throughout the west coast. This study was conducted because the conference is aware of

the time commitment student-athletes make to their sport and want to determine how

much they should be paid. The study showed that over 85 percent of athletes were happy

with their college experience even though it may cause stress and some feel exiled from the

rest of the student body. However, the findings are very different following that statistic

with, according to the study, Pac-12 students spending over 50 hours a week on their

sport: 21 hours per week on required athletic activities, and 29 hours on other sport

activities including working out, watching films, travel, and meetings (“Student-Athlete

Time Demands, 2015”). This results in less time for sleep and studying. Sixty-six percent of

athletes believed that they are not treated unfairly, but also said that they are not the

average student, which just continues to support the claim that student-athletes are not

students but employees. Pac-12 athletes believe that participating in a Division I sport

limits their campus social life. Seventy percent said their athletic commitment prevents

them from joining on-campus communities or clubs. Seventy-five percent said that they do

not have the opportunity to participate in extra-curricular activities because of required

school activities, such as speaking series or community service. Student-athletes on

scholarship at Arizona State are not allowed to join Greek life or play intramural sports

because the school believes it is not in their best interests due to time conflicts. Some of the

students surveyed believe that having friends outside of sports would provide stress relief

and make college life easier, but it is hard to meet friends with a lack of social life outside of

sports. These problems are similar to those of someone with a full-time job.

Lipson 5

Players are responsible for going to class, although players miss days or weeks due

to college road trips. For example, an NCAA basketball player is expected to succeed in

class while missing weeks due to March madness and college championship tournaments.

A staggering 80 percent of student-athletes have missed multiple classes due to

competitions during the 2014–2015 season, and over 50 percent say they do not have

nearly enough time to study for tests. In the study, the primary concern for student-

athletes was their ability to get enough sleep and succeed in their studies. Seventy-one

percent of student-athletes said that they do not get enough sleep during the regular

season. Many students stated that they suffer from physical exhaustion from their sport,

which leads to stress (“Student-Athlete Time Demands, 2015”). This was when the word

“job” started to emerge from the mouths of the student-athletes. Although the students

found their sport rewarding, by the end of the year, the athletes were disturbed at the

revenue the conference and school received from their athletic competitions. The revenue

from these nationally televised games goes towards the school. Student-athletes

specifically at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Arizona State University

(ASU), and California State University (CAL) thought it unfair that the school reaps financial

gains from a basketball player’s performance, which is largely achieved by marketing the

school to the nation with commercials and advertisements.

The term “student-athlete” suggests that this person is a student first and an athlete

second, and that they should be devoting more time to their studies and student activities,

such Greek life, the debate team, or the band; however, this is not always the case.

According to the New York Times and the NCAA, a survey in 2011 surveyed college athletes

around the country and an overwhelming number said that they were athletes first and

Lipson 6

students second. In addition, many students explained that the school also considers them

athletes first and students second. Thus, many college football players major in general

studies or areas that are considered fairly easy. However, these majors do not necessarily

position the student-athlete to exceed in life after school (Gutting 2012). This puts

immense pressure on the athlete to succeed in their sport in the hopes of making it to the

next level as a professional football, basketball, or baseball player. This defines their sport

as their major, and not their studies. However, this is not the athlete’s fault, but the school’s

because academic advisors schedule athletes into the easiest possible classes so that they

will succeed and not be ruled ineligible to play because of a poor academic performance.

For example, a course about Facebook (an actual class offered at ASU) will be much easier

than macroeconomics. This scares athletes away from becoming a business or engineering

major. Now, the NCAA may argue that they put the student in a position to succeed and that

many of them graduate with a degree. However, if the degree does not hold any weight,

how can they succeed in life after college athletics? Saying you were the starting power

forward for your college team on your resume does not translate into a job in the corporate

world. Many athletes can only become coaches after their career fizzles out because they do

not know anything else; some athletes cannot even hold a regular job after college because

they were not properly educated. For instance, former National Basketball Association

(NBA) first-round pick, David Harrison, has been working for McDonald’s for almost nine

years after his career in the NBA did not work out. He never graduated with a degree, and

has a family to provide for, but he admits that he had trouble finding work after his

basketball career ended. Is this an example of poor financial management or a poor

Lipson 7

academic support system when he was in college? The school will point to the student

because he did not take advantage of his opportunity to get an education. I believe it is the

school’s wrongdoing and so does Gary Gutting of the New York Times. After a study in 2011,

Gutting found that the two highest grossing sports, basketball and football, gave out full

athletic scholarships compared to soccer and track, which only give out partial athletic

scholarships, with the rest being academic scholarships. Considering how much time an

athlete devotes to his sport, they should be far superior academically because of their lack

of study time compared to non-athlete students. This is not the case, as the same study

found that athletic scholarship standards are far below those of normal academic

scholarships. For example, the average SAT scores of incoming athletes during 2011 were

200 points lower than non-athlete students. It also takes a student-athlete an average of six

years to complete a degree, but their athletic scholarship is only for four years because that

is the amount of years a player is eligible (Gutting 2012).

I interviewed a friend of mine, Chase Gorham, for the purpose of this paper. He is a

recent graduate from the University of Arizona (UofA), and a former long snapper on the

football team on a full athletic scholarship. He took some time out of his schedule as he

prepares for the National Football League (NFL) draft. He talked about his experiences with

the previous coaching staff under Mike Stoops, as well as how the basketball program

operated. I asked Chase about academics, if the football team took studies seriously, and

how the school dealt with this. I also asked Chase to talk to me about his experience with

his academic schedule while he was at Arizona. He told me that the football team was able

to schedule classes before the rest of the students at UofA, and that was the norm at most

Lipson 8

schools. Although it was meant so that players could schedule classes around football, they

used it as a chance to take the easiest classes as advised by the football staff. I specifically

asked, “Are the football players held to a different standard than normal students?” He said,

“Yes, but it is a lower standard. The star players were not students; they were employees

who were the face of the school. They were stars that could see themselves on billboard in

Tucson and see their face all over the UofA website (C. Gorham, personal communication,

February 23 2015).” I was quickly reminded that it was the players from the UofA football

team who started the revolution and lawsuit against EA Sports profiting from their likeness

on video games, but that is a story I will touch on later in the paper. I asked him to

elaborate on his claim that star players are employees. He was reluctant to speak on this,

but he laid out a story for me regarding their All-American star running back, Ka’deem

Carey. Chase explained, “We had a class together and during football season Ka’deem

would show up 30 minutes late to class every day and sit in the front row (because the

coaches made him) and he would just play games on his IPad that the coaches gave him. He

must have done a total of 30 minutes of work that whole semester, but he told me he

passed with a C-“ (C. Gorham, personal communication, February 23 2015). The coaches

could not afford to lose him for the season due to a failed class; so, the professors just

pushed him through the system recognizing that the school needed him to play to win

games, and the more games they won the bigger the profit the football team would make.

The professors were also aware that Carey was not going to graduate anyway because he

would declare for the NFL later that year. I asked him if the stars received any

impermissible benefits from the school. He was not aware of anything regarding the

Lipson 9

football team, but he did tell me about a story concerning former NBA number 2 overall

pick, Derrick Williams. Chase would see Derrick mowing the football practice field twice a

week and thought it was odd to see a 6’8” basketball player mowing the lawn instead of

someone from the stadium staff. Chase explained, “Derrick would mow our football field

and apparently be paid by the school over $40,000 to do so. We would watch him do it

while we ran the stadium. It would take about an hour and a half.” According to NCAA rules,

athletes can be paid to hold jobs as many do hold positions at school in the student stores

or cafeteria. However, to be paid $40,000 to mow the lawn is illegal and illustrates that the

UofA treats their players like athletes who attend their school, and not as student-athletes. I

finished the interview by asking Chase if he thought college players should be paid. Chase

confidently replied, “Yes, of course, maybe not thousands of dollars but a scholarship just

doesn’t cut it. Our lives revolve around football and not school, and maybe if we got paid a

few hundred a week if we went to every practice and every class, we would actually go to

class.” He sees himself more of an employee than a student, although he does take pride in

his studies, but that is because it is a requirement; his scholarship can be taken away if he

does not maintain a 2.8 GPA (C. Gorham, personal communication, February 23 2015).

However, this standard is not a requirement for all students, especially the four- or five-

star recruits. It is clear, then, that on the whole, members of these teams are athletes first

and students second, both from their own and their schools’ viewpoint.

Universities and students agree that there are no student-athletes; rather, they are

athletes who happen to be university students. The evidence shows that they are more like

employees. The student-athletes have proven that they are putting in the time and work for

Lipson 10

a team, a school, and in all likeness, a company. Universities must make money and a lot of

a university’s profits come from the athletic department. This makes the athletes

employees who work for a corporation that is trying to make money. The growth of sports

has taken off in the past decade. The combination of technology, unpredictability, and

access has created a monster of an industry that will continue to grow with time. The big

business of college athletics has proven that college athletes now more than ever are

employees of the school, media, and the NCAA. Since the year 2000, the Universities of

Texas, Michigan, Georgia, and Florida, and Notre Dame have each generated a profit of over

$400 million just from their football programs. Their head coaches’ salaries range from $1–

$5 million, their athletic directors are all making over $200 thousand a year, and their

athletes, nothing. Mack Brown’s $5.4 million salary makes him one of the highest paid

employees in the state of Texas (Jasthi 2014). Florida football has seen a 145 percent

increase in football profits from 2001 to 2013, winning three conference championships

and two national championships during that time. If the Florida football team were

considered a company, the team would be the fastest growing company in that time span.

Many agree that these institutions have reached a level where they are a national brand.

This is due to the product on the field, the players, who bring in the money but do not see

any of it. Fans come to see greatness; they come to see players they adore, such as Vince

Young and Tim Tebow who both won national championships at their respected

universities, but were not successful in the NFL. These are the real faces of the school and

should be some of the highest paid employees at their school. The billion-dollar industry

that is college football has created a top-heavy empire where only a few get paid due to the

Lipson 11

“amateur” nature of athletics. There is too much money to be made to continue to call

college athletics an amateur sport; even high school football games and the little league

world series are broadcast on national television.

The case for paying players got significantly stronger with court case findings in the

past year. I refer back to the interview with Arizona football player, Chase Gorham, and his

teammates’ fight against EA Sports. Filed in 2009 by former UCLA basketball star Ed

O’Bannon, O’Bannon vs. NCAA was a lawsuit that sought to end the NCAA’s ban on

compensating players for their likeness in DVDs, photos, video games, and on jerseys. The

suit was complicated because of a lack of consistency between federal law and the NCAA’s

rules about players’ likenesses. There is also no uniform acceptance of these NCAA rules.

According to the association, players sign a waiver with every scholarship offer that gives

the school the right to advertise their likeness, such as their picture or jersey number for

the profit of the school. However, players have no choice but to agree because there is no

separate form that gives the player the right to consent over the use of his personal image

(Kaburakis, 296). Under federal law it states, “One can pursue a false endorsement claim

under the Federal Trademark Act. The plaintiff must prove that the mark is legally

protectable, the mark is owned, and the defendant’s use of the mark to identify its good or

service is likely to create confusion concerning the plaintiffs’ sponsorship. Marks include a

person’s image, likeness, voice, and general identity” (Kaburakis, 297). In a student’s letter

of intent, it explains that the NCAA may use the student’s picture and likeness to promote

the NCAA (who was a sponsor of the video game). In fact, the NCAA was making money

from the EA Sports video game while the players could not reap any benefits. The players

Lipson 12

were able to pursue a claim under the Federal Trademark Act stated above because the

game clearly states their height, weight, number, and statistics while using a generated

image of the player but without a name. In a study done in the Journal of Sports

Management, the results confirm that players believe in fair compensation. Over 53 percent

of athletes said they can recognize their player in the game. Although 90 percent of the

players surveyed enjoyed seeing themselves in the game, only 30 percent thought their

scholarship was enough compensation for being in the video game (Kaburakis, 301). The

defendants EA and NCAA settled for a staggering $40 million, which was paid to former and

current players who appeared in the NCAA video game for 10 years. Since the settlement,

the game has been pulled from the EA Sports’ lineup. The case of O’Bannon vs. NCAA was

just the beginning of a serious restructuring of the college football landscape. What

happened next changed college athletics forever.

The debate whether athletes are employees took a turn last August when the

National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D.C. granted the Northwestern University

football team’s request to vote on the decision to unionize as employees of the school. Their

stated reason was that the school treats the players unfairly and that their commitment for

the sport goes far beyond a normal student’s demand. Since the vote, there have been

appeals by the NCAA and the school and the votes still sit in a box uncounted. The school

and the head football coach were opposed to the idea of the team unionizing, but their cry

was heard. In addition, even though there still has not been an official decision on the case,

many of their issues have been brought up by the major conferences in college football. The

team called for full four-year guaranteed scholarships and expanded healthcare. They got

Lipson 13

what they wanted, with the NCAA reforming their stance on football scholarships. Because

of the offseason requirements for football players, new four-year scholarships are now

offered with an increased amount into the thousands to cover the players’ offseason

training. Healthcare coverage has made significant progress, but some injuries while

playing are not covered by the school or the NCAA, which is mindboggling to me (Strauss

2014). A player who risks their life playing football and suffers a life-threatening injury

while playing a sport for the school should never be stuck with any sort of medical bill.

Even though there has been no decision on the case to unionize, the efforts made by

Northwestern’s football team has shined a light on the controversial issue. So much so that

President Obama sat down with The Huffington Post to address the issue with college

athletics. The President’s believes that the amateurism in college sports is gone. President

Obama states, “The students need to be taken better care of because they are generating a

lot of revenue here” (Jamieson, 2015). He believes that the NCAA rules meant to protect the

concept of amateurism are draconian because of the huge profits the schools make and the

exorbitant salaries the coaches are paid, while the players do not receive a dime, and if they

do try to make money on the side and capitalize on their talent, they risk suspension.

President Barack Obama agrees with my argument that these players are somewhat

employees of the schools and deserve complete health coverage. Furthermore, many of

these players will not make it to the next level. Obama responds to this issue by stating, “I

do think that recognizing that the majority of these student-athletes are not going to end up

playing professional ball — this isn’t just a farm system for the NBA or NFL — means that

the universities have more responsibilities than right now they’re showing ” He went on to

say, “You’ve got to make sure that if they get injured while they’re playing that they’re

Lipson 14

covered” (Jamieson, 2015). Even if the majority of votes are against unionizing, just the

action from the Northwestern football team and the response from the NCAA prove that

the term “student-athlete” is no more. The conventional college athlete should now be

viewed as a university employee. This goes a long way in the argument for paying college

players.

President Obama spoke on the issue of NCAA communication and regulations when

The Huffington Post interviewed him. Communication plays a large part in the argument for

paying players, and the NCAA has failed to properly communicate their rules and

regulations to universities around the country. They have failed to communicate what is

considered wrongdoing and have failed to uphold their stance on paying players by setting

the wrong example over and over again. The poor communication between the athletic

directors, boosters, the NCAA, and coaches has led to a corrupt system that must be

changed. For example, the poor regulations and communication between coaches and the

NCAA has created an environment on the recruiting trail that if you aren’t cheating you

aren’t trying. Story after story has exposed the NCAA for what they are. For instance, a

school can recruit a player and a booster will throw $100 thousand to the player if he

commits to said school. By the time the NCAA goes through the proper process, the player

has already been playing in the NFL for a year. What stops the high school kid from taking

thousands of dollars when he knows by the time he gets caught, nothing can happen to

him? Nothing. I use a story of former star, Cam Newton, as an example of this poor

regulation. The NCAA found Cam Newton and his father Cecil guilty of a “pay for play

scheme” where his father was taking bids for his son’s services out of junior college. He was

Lipson 15

offered amounts from $120–180 thousand for his son’s commitment, acting as an agent and

his son a free agent willing to play for the highest bidder. However, by the time the NCAA

figured this out it was too late; Newton was already playing for the Carolina Panthers in the

NFL. This happens all the time in college. The NCAA is too slow in its legislation and by the

time they come to a conclusion on a case, the players or coaches who acted wrongly are

already gone. Another example is the national championship teams of the University of

Southern California in the early 2000s. According to reports, multiple players were getting

paid by boosters and coaches to come play for them. Under Pete Carrol’s watch, former

Heisman winner Reggie Bush accepted impermissible benefits while at the school in the

form of cars and cash, but they never served any punishment for their actions. The

anonymous boosters are never caught because it is all cash, and just when the allegations

became public, Carroll took a job with the NFL. It is not fair to the students or players that

come in after the scandals because they are the ones who get punished. The NCAA fails to

set a precedent for these young athletes or coaches. It is a system that is broken.

NCAA bylaw 12.5.3 states, “Outside the playing season, a student-athlete may

participate in media activities (e.g., appearance on radio, television, in films or stage

productions or participation in writing projects) when such appearance or participation is

related in any way to athletics ability or prestige, provided the student-athlete is eligible

academically to represent the institution and does not receive any remuneration for such

appearance or participation. The student-athlete may not make any endorsement,

expressed or implied, of any commercial product or service. The student-athlete may,

however, receive legitimate and normal expenses directly related to such appearance or

Lipson 16

participation, provided the source of the expenses is the entity sponsoring the activity.” In

summary, this rule states that a player is able to perform on a radio or television show, but

cannot receive a monetary benefit from such appearance; it also states that the player is

forbidden to advertise or sign any endorsement deals. They are also forbidden to start their

own company while a student-athlete. The rule is properly communicated on paper, but

this rule is poorly interpreted by athletes and poorly translated to schools, and mainly

because the system has become so hypocritical regarding its own rules. The game of college

football has become so entertaining that star players are not just stars on the field, but

everywhere they go. A jersey with Johnny Manziel’s number on it costs $60.00. There are

shirts that say “Johnny Football” across the front. Texas A&M made over $38 million during

his time at the school. The game between Alabama and Texas A&M in 2012 was one of the

most watched games in sports history. More people tuned into college football playoffs last

year than the finale in MASH. Any college junior can act in a commercial or make money off

their likeness, but because these students put on a jersey that has the NCAA logo on it, they

cannot reap any benefits. These kids are stars. Stars like Johnny Manziel, Todd Gurley, and

Dak Prescott need security wherever they go; they are treated either like celebrities or

enemies. Any action becomes a national media firestorm; there are videos of these players

getting followed into bathrooms or even assaulted on spring break, because of who they

are and the jersey they put on, but I digress. The fact is that these players are labeled as

students by the rulebook, but the media, the schools, and the NCAA market them as stars.

This can be hard to interpret for a college athlete. For example, Johnny Manziel was

investigated for an off-season incident where he was paid $7,500 to sign over 100 mini-

Lipson 17

helmets and footballs. Yes, a wrongdoing, but many people turn their focus not to Manziel

but to the hypocrisy of the NCAA. A poll done on the Fox Sports Twitter account showed

that almost 95 percent did not want Manziel to be punished for his actions (Travis, 2014). I

mean we are not talking about a multimillion-dollar apparel deal. Many agree that it is not

wrong to make a little side cash for your own signature. The NCAA’s response supported

the claim of the fans and the leaders of college football continued to display poor

communication. Manziel received a slap on the wrist for what should have been a major

violation on paper. The investigation found Manziel guilty, but he only received a half-game

suspension.

The argument continues because as Johnny Manziel was found guilty of infractions,

so were two stars the very next year. Jameis Winston and Todd Gurley were investigated

for the same issue, and both players feel that they are being exploited because they have to

sign school-affiliated materials for hours. This can be for charity or even for fans during

conferences that are organized by the school to raise “awareness” of the team. The rule

may be black and white, but if it cannot be properly communicated then something must be

changed to fix it. The rule is outdated and even the NCAA president Mark Emmert agrees.

In a recent interview, Emmert voiced his concern. He told USA Today that the rule might be

outdated and that whether or not it’s a rule you like is a different story. He went

on to claim that it might be time to re visit this bylaw (Wolken, 2014). Players

are offered copious amounts of money and the profits from selling autographed

memorabilia are worth so much that, soon after the suspension of Todd Gurley,

the Georgia Senate passed a bill that will punish people for paying players.

Lipson 18

It is human nature to feel a close connection and obligation to support

your hometown or alma mater. Many fans go to great lengths to ensure the

success of their team. Schools receive donations by the millions, and the

students’ profit as well. Players receiving compensation for playing has been a

part of the NCAA for decades proving that the current system does not work.

The system of college athletics is broken, and there are many ways to try to fix

it. However, the system will never work until there is an overhaul and a change,

which is to finally compensate the athletes for the job. No school official, no

player, no NCAA leader has learned their lesson. The cheating has been

happening for decades. Take, for example, Southern Methodist University

(SMU), a private university located in the heart of Dallas. SMU had it all in the

1980s. The school brought in a new coach and brand new recruits who were

ready to bring the school to a level it never had before. Ron Meyer was hired in

1976 at the second smallest school in Texas. Since his hiring, players who

should have been attending Texas or Texas A&M were suddenly choosing to

play football for SMU. Even though recruitment tactics were questioned, the

school continued to reel in stars and play for national championships. Over the

span of four years, the school went 41-5. These years were highlighted by the

best backfield in college football history, Craig James and Eric Dickerson.

Although the success started to raise awareness of what was going on behind

doors, the NCAA challenged SMU, and after the 1986 season, the school was

found guilty of a “slush fund.” The quasi-professional athletes were receiving

cars, homes, and cash for joining the Mustangs. Players were receiving cash

Lipson 19

payments up to $700 a month, including thirteen players being paid a total of

$60 thousand in one season (Gould, 2014). Eric Dickerson even joked that he

took a pay cut to play in the NFL. Not only were the coach and boosters

involved, the community, the school, and the government took part in the

scandal. Teachers and the school were aware of the infractions but were afraid

if the payments stopped, the word would get out about the payments. The

school president and newly sworn in governor, Bill Clements, assured that the

payments had stopped, but when a former player who was kicked off the team

met with the media to tell his story, not only was the school exposed, so was

Bill. The former player told the media he was given a house for his family and

he was compensated for his play while at the school until he was kicked off the

team for a drug abuse issue. SMU was met with the strongest penalty given to

a university, the death penalty, meaning that the school was to shut down its

football program (Gould, 2014). This killed any trace left from the era that was

the pony express (Pony Express). The SMU scandal exemplifies what is wrong

with college athletics. Although the logical action would be to punish or ban

this from happening, it has been proven that it will not stop. That is why I

propose the opposite — encourage a free market where players should be paid

for their services.

Illegal compensation is not the only reason that I push for reform.

Academics are the sole reason why athletes are considered students. Education

is the foundation of what student-athletes stand for. Once that has been

compromised, the universities and players have nothing. Players and teams

Lipson 20

who cheat their way through college are seen as misfit criminals who use the

system to play football. There have been too many cases where college athletes

have flushed their integrity down the toilet and just use the school to play

football. For example, the esteemed University of North Carolina was indicted

on charges that stemmed from a cheating ring that has been taking place for

athletes for the past 20 years, and included the football team as well as the

men’s and women’s basketball teams. The school was found guilty of classes

that gave out automatic A’s as well as classes that didn’t exist and that were

only available to athletes (“Massive Cheating Scandal At UNC, 2014”). School

advisors were well aware of the infractions and they steered struggling

athletes into classes that had no instructor and had one assignment that was

graded by a student advisor. These classes became mandatory for athletes who

were struggling with grades. According to reports, school officials would

overlook red flags and never report these fake programs. This type of infraction

goes beyond sports and ethical issues. The US Justice Department found this

type of scandal one of the most extreme acts of dishonesty in America’s

education history (“Massive Cheating Scandal At UNC, 2014”). The whole point

of going to college is to get an education. Being paid is one issue, but when

players cripple the term “student-athlete” it puts a negative image on all

college athletes. Why are these types of privileges given to athletes? Why do

they get an opportunity to cheat their way through school? They are given

these chances because of their worth to the university. A student who pays

their way through college may be worth their amount in tuition but they bring

Lipson 21

nothing else to the school. Normal students are held to the highest standard,

but if caught cheating or committing a minor infraction, the school will move

on this and expel the student. However, athletes and particularly those who

bring money to the school such as football, basketball, and baseball players,

get a second chance, and sometimes a third. The people who get punished are

the advisors and the teachers. Notre Dame is on a par with the Ivy League

schools when it comes to education. They have the highest academic

requirements for admissions, and during the year, their starting quarterback

(QB) was caught in a major cheating scandal. Other students involved were

expelled and loss scholarships. However, the starting QB was suspended, but

joined the team the very next season and never lost his scholarship. The system

has become a double standard, where the athletes are treated like celebrities

and they can even be above the law. The NCAA has come to the point where

they just need to fill the gap. The system is flawed and broken to the point of no

return and they should move forward and pay players. The money has become

too lucrative; there is too much at stake to keep testing the limits. Although

paying players is the right path, it must be done in a way that benefits both the

students and school.

Yes, the big business of college athletics and the poor handling and communication

of the rules by the NCAA supports the argument that college athletes should be paid, but

many believe their faults should not lead to abandoning the college athletic system. Many

college leaders, such as Horace Mitchell, the President of California State University, believe

that paying players would be outrageous because of the advantages that they already

Lipson 22

receive. Mitchell states, “Students are not professional athletes who are paid salaries and

incentives for a career in sports. They are students receiving access to a college education

through their participation in sports, for which they earn scholarships to pay tuition, fees,

room and board, and other allowable expenses. Collegiate sports is not a career or

profession. It is the students’ vehicle to a higher education degree. This access is contingent

upon continued enrollment, participation in the sport for which they received the

scholarship, and academic eligibility. The NCAA Student Assistance Fund can be used to

help those student-athletes who have unusual needs in excess of the usual cost of

attendance. A high percentage of student-athletes graduate without the burden of student

loans, which most other students accumulate” (Mitchel, 2014). In a way, Mitchell is very

accurate. College athletes receive advantages that other students do not. Student-athletes

receive everything for free, including books, housing, tutoring and a meal plan. These

charges are valued at approximately $5,000 a year. That does not include the free tuition,

clothing, and special care that they receive from the institution. Student-athletes also select

their classes before other students. All of this information is correct but these are not the

only expenses that a college student incurs.

An average athletic scholarship is $15,000 a year, which covers everything that is

required for a student to succeed in the classroom. All these expenses are legal, but there is

a lot more that goes into college than just school its self. Practice and school only take up

half of the day. Studying is important but that still does not take up the entire day or entire

week. Many people agree that what happens outside of school is as important as class.

Students who play a sport do not have time for a full-time job and it is difficult to hold a

Lipson 23

part-time job with the commitment to school and academics. Students find it hard to pay

for meals when off-campus at the current rate of scholarships. Thus, minor changes have

been made in recent years such as schools across the country keeping the athletic facility

open later for meals, as well as players receiving more money on a meal plan (Mitchell,

2014). Although, it took a prominent figure in sports to speak on the issue before anything

was done. Shabazz Napier, who left for the NBA after he won the Basketball National

Championship with the University of Connecticut, told CNN, “I don’t feel student-athletes

should get hundreds of thousands of dollars, but like I said, there are nights that I go to bed

and I’m starving.” There should never be a college student who goes to bed without a meal,

especially someone who represents the university and makes millions for the athletic

department.

Another aspect that schools overlook is the social aspect of college and how that can

cost a lot of money. The social aspect of college is an important component of college life.

This is how someone creates memories and molds them into who they are today. A

scholarship does not cover expenses for a student to have fun, to go to a movie or a bar, or

a simple social outing like a dinner with some friends. Horace Mitchell agrees that the

social aspect is important to college life and that schools should be providing money for the

student to enjoy him- or herself while attending the school. Mitchell shared his

consideration with USA Today, “It is clear that, in addition to their academic course loads,

student-athletes’ physical conditioning, practice and competition schedules make it

difficult for many of them to take on part-time employment to supplement their

institutional aid. So, perhaps the question should be whether it is reasonable that student-

athletes should have additional resources typical for full-time students who work during

Lipson 24

the academic year, since scholarships do not cover all living expenses and many student-

athletes do not have the opportunity to earn income to cover those expenses or to afford

simple social outings with friends, an important component of college life, well-being and

holistic development.” There is a discussion in the NCAA about increasing financial aid to

allow student-athletes to have funds typical of working full-time students at their

institutions. Paramount in those discussions is the well being of the student and the ethics

of amateur sports (Mitchell, 2014).

Playing devil’s advocate on this point, one can refer to the non-athlete student’s

inability to afford things such as new clothes and food. Being broke is part of college life,

which is why eating ramen and sandwiches are so popular among 20-year-olds. Also, many

part-time jobs held by college students pay the minimum wage or are unpaid internships.

Most college students cannot afford to splurge on clothes and trips to Vegas, and many

critics think that college athletes are complaining that it is unfair that they do not receive

more money when most students are in the same boat. The difference is that the school is

not profiting from the average student like they are from an athlete.

Universities struggle when faced with the idea of paying players. One reason is

because they are concerned about the possible outcomes when a teenager is given a large

sum of money. Ego can get in the way and a player’s dedication to the classroom may suffer

when they know they will be getting paid for sport during their college years and maybe

well into the professional years. Or more worrisome to coaches and schools are if players

who come into a good sum of money spend it in unwise or horrific ways, such as on cars,

jewelry, or even drugs. I believe that if college players were going to get paid extra by the

NCAA or schools that the coaches and school leaders should trust the character and

Lipson 25

judgment of the student the school has recruited when they’re given freedom. This is not a

problem of the players, but of the faculty and the staff. For example, ASU under Coach

Dennis Erickson had multiple players suspended or expelled from the team for school and

NCAA violations. Under Todd Graham’s two-year regime, only one player was. He preaches

character and discipline. The NCAA rule regarding gifts or impermissible benefits has never

affected any of Todd Graham’s players. One cannot say the same for many top programs

around the country, such as USC or Florida State.

The issue here may not just be about the players but their backgrounds. Paying

college athletes has become intertwined with socio-economic views and cultural

backgrounds. This is because many athletes attending school for a sport have always had to

rely on their athletic ability to get them to the next level. It is a fact that many players come

from poor African-American communities who were able attend university because of their

athleticism. They receive barely enough money to live while at school, but sometime

players of all races have to pay bills back home for family and friends. If the school is not

going to pay them and someone is willing to offer them extra cash to sign shirts, then they

will take the opportunity because there is no choice. Athletes do not see the fault in taking

money to support their family and friends because in their mind they are only helping, not

breaking any rules. Former Arizona Cardinal, Darnell Dockett, is a prime example. Dockett

was born in one of the poorest neighborhoods in Tallahassee, Florida. At the age of 13, he

had to support himself and his drug addict mother. He took up football in high school to try

to make a better life for himself. He admitted that he would have never gotten into college

based on his grades. He received a scholarship to powerhouse Florida State, but he

Lipson 26

struggled with off-field issues getting suspended twice for shoplifting groceries and

breaking into a car to steal for his mother. He admits that he would have been able to stay

on the field if he knew that he and his mom were both taken care of financially (Wyche,

2014).

This brings me back to the known fact that college sports are a business and it is a

crime against the athletes for not seeing any of that money. Even if the money is put to

good use (I will get to that later). According to a study conducted by the College Players

Association and Drexel’s sports management program, they found that a staggering 86

percent of players living on or around campus are living under the federal poverty line.

They get enough money to cover living expenses on-campus but because on-campus living

is so expensive, the average player is left with a little over $3,000 per year to live off when

they are worth over six figures. The study also found that, based on the profits of each

athletic department during the 2010 season, the average college football player in one of

the Power 5 conferences was worth over $120,000 and a basketball player worth over

$265,000 to the school if they were paid as employees. This is a staggering number

considering 85 percent of the players are living under the poverty line. However, this

makes sense because the average college coach for the top three grossing college sports

(basketball, baseball, and football) is $2 million (Nance-Nash, 2014). I think it is alarming

that these numbers keep increasing but the scholarship money stays the same. The tradeoff

for free education is just not enough anymore, especially when players dedicate so much

time to their sport and now know their worth to the school and the league. The most

shocking statistic is that the five most profitable programs in 2010 have the highest

amount of players living below the poverty line. Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina,

Lipson 27

Arkansas, and Oklahoma all reeled in over $68 million in revenue during the 2010 calendar

year, yet the players live in the poorest bottom third of all players in the study. The

student-athletes were between $2,000 and $3,000 under the poverty line (Nance-Nash,

2014).

In a statement made by the NCAA Vice President of Communication, the facts

already argue against the organization setting athletes up for life after college. Now there is

also a compelling argument against the NCAA’s non-profit status. A non-profit entity is an

organization that shares a common goal or purpose that is usually aimed at providing a

mission or service of goodwill to a certain community. The organization should use its

surplus revenue to achieve its purpose, rather than distributing income to directors or

keeping profits as a dividend. This is important because the NCAA acts as a non-profit

entity; thus, they are exempt from paying sales and property tax and the organization’s

income may not be subject to federal taxes. The NCAA and its President, Mark Emmert,

communicate that the NCAA is a non-profit when they are flat out wrong. The NCAA had

profits of over $32 million in the 2012–2013 fiscal year, while Mr. Emmert made over $1.7

million in 2013. The Executive VP, Donald Remy, made $619,633 and the Chief Operating

Officer, Jim Isch, made over $1 million in 2013 (Syrios, 2014). The NCAA is a $10 billion

non-profit. Millions do go back to the schools to help fund the athletic department, but

more than 50 percent of the universities are unable to self-support their athletic

department. Universities often turn to the taxpayers to help support stadium upgrades or

help fund tournaments. For example, Texas turned to a taxpayer trust fund in 2013 in

order to help fund the host city of Dallas. Texas should not turn to the taxpayers’ money

Lipson 28

when the “non-profit” is taking in $32 million in profit. The NCAA also has a $10 billion

television deal with CBS and Turner Sports over the next 14 years (Syrios, 2014). This is

not an accusation or a public scolding of the NCAA. Critics are not trying to paint the NCAA

as the bad guy, but are asking for the organization to show its true colors and come out for

what they truly are, a multi-million dollar entity. After that is established, the NCAA can pay

its athletes without any conflict of interest.

The $32 million generated by the NCAA is driven by the big two sports of football

and basketball. These two sports are the lifeblood of college athletics. This is not to say that

all other sports are ignored, but college football and men’s basketball are the sports that

ESPN, FOX, and CBS pay millions to broadcast. Many of the other Division 1 sports lose

money for the schools, while basketball and football are the sports that generate the money

that allows other sports, like volleyball and wrestling, to operate. The athletes from football

and basketball are the ones whose images are being used the majority of the time. These

athletes are synonymous with their alma mater and they truly generate revenue for the

school years after graduation. Players like Charles Woodson or Vince Young have statues in

their honor erected outside their school, and no matter how successful or unsuccessful

their pro careers are, they are used as recruiting tools for players and season ticket holders

alike. One can even look at ASU’s Pat Tillman, who served as a hero and inspiration for

Americans when he left professional football to serve in the United States Army. Arizona

State has been honoring him ever since by posting the PT42 logo all sports jerseys, as well

as around campus and in the football stadium. It is a rare occasion for an athlete from a

Lipson 29

smaller sport to be honored long after their playing days. This is because they do not

receive the same amount of exposure that players from the big two do.

Critics of the NCAA pose the question that if college athletes are going to get paid,

then every athlete from every sport must be paid, and not only men’s sports but women’s

sports, too. The Title IX law was passed to create a fair college athletic environment for

men and woman. There must be the same number of men’s sports and women’s sports, and

the same amount of scholarships available for both genders’ sports based on the

percentage of players on the roster. Although many argue that paying athletes is not a

gender issue but about fair market, and that women’s sports do not make the same amount

of money that men’s sports do. However, I would like to take a different approach to the

argument. Taking the interdisciplinary approach to the study, I would like to examine the

view of an athlete from a smaller sport who still devotes the same amount of time as the

bigger profit-generating sports, such as football, basketball, and baseball. How can the

university or NCAA determine how much women earn for their respected sport compared

to the men’s sports? Title IX and the National Labor Relations Board can argue sexism

against schools if women are paid half as much as men just because their respected sport

does not generate the same amount of money. This debate is either the final hurdle to

paying players or the brick wall that terminates the talks all together. Erin Buzuvis, a law

professor at Western New England University, is an activist of Title IX and she wrote a

response to the case of the Northwestern football team against the school. On her Title IX

website, Buzuvis says, “Imagine that, for example, a football players’ union succeeds in

bargaining for extended health insurance — the Northwestern football players’ stated

objective. It would clearly violate Title IX if that benefit only applied to male athletes and

Lipson 30

not female athletes — even though the male athletes bargained for it and female athletes

did not. Title IX regulations require schools to provide equal treatment in the aggregate to

its men’s and women’s programs, as measured by a ‘laundry list’ of factors that expressly

includes access to medical services, which has been interpreted to include ‘the equivalence

for men and woman of. . . health accident and injury insurance coverage” (Eveleth, 2014).

Giving equal medical services to men’s and women’s sports could cost universities millions

of dollars. In some ways, it is just not realistic and Marc Edelman of Forbes agrees. He

believes that payments and disbursement of insurance should be based on revenue that the

sport generates for the school. However, this is not feasible because for sports that

generate little to no money for the school, no money would be left for women’s sports.

Furthermore, it would create pay discrepancies between men’s and women’s sports that

would certainly raise serious criticisms about paying players. So what is the answer? There

is no case law on the subject so there is no real answer. In regards to coaches, Nick Saban

makes more in a year coaching Alabama football than all the Alabama women coaches

combined (Eveleth, 2014). However, Title IX only applies to the student-athletes and does

not cover salaries for coaches; therefore, coaches can still make a salary based on the

revenue that the sport creates. So where will the answer come from? In this new era of

gender equality, there is no way around the anti-discrimination rule that Title IX presents.

Title IX is not the only issue in the equal opportunity for college athletics. There are

also other men’s sports that do not produce revenue, such as gymnastics, soccer, golf, and

wrestling. Thus, the value of these athletes to the school is not as high as those from

football, basketball, and baseball. There is no Title IX law to protect them, but the NCAA will

not pass legislation where athletes get paid according to revenue because all sports would

Lipson 31

be adversely affected, especially the small schools where the football team produces just

enough money to support the entire athletic department. This could result in the closure of

some of the smaller programs, such as lacrosse or track.

This leads to another problem when developing a plan to pay athletes. Athletes and

officials agree that student-athletes should be paid; that is a given but a counterargument

must be examined. If athletes believe they are employees of the school then a pay scale

must be addressed. Pay scales are an important part of any company, and if athletes want

to be treated like semi-professionals, then they must compare themselves to leagues such

as the NFL. Starters are paid millions while fourth string players are paid the league

minimum. Certain positions are seen as more important than others and a quarterback is

compensated more compared to a kicker. A starting QB is worth ten times more than the

punter, but should a QB be compensated for what he is worth? No, he should not. Not that

he doesn’t deserve it, but if the starting QB for a big university was compensated for what

he is worth to the school, he would be a millionaire before he is able to legally drink. The

NFL recently changed the rookie pay scale and put a cap on what a draft pick can earn,

mainly because giving 22-year-olds millions of dollars is not responsible for the teams or

the athletes. For example, the last top pick to receive a contract under the old pay scale was

JaMarcus Russell, a QB out of Louisiana State University (LSU). The problem is that 22-

year-olds are not mature enough to be handed a $60 million contract right out of college.

JaMarcus flamed out of the NFL and had multiple run ins with the law. This shows that

giving even younger athletes money could be a problem. As stated earlier in the study,

college athletes are already treated like stars. If they were paid based on a pay scale, the

Lipson 32

student-athletes would now have the extreme financial means to do what they want.

Money and fame can lead young college athletes to gain access to things they shouldn’t,

such as partying with celebrities and favorable treatment from the law. For example,

Johnny Manziel was not only a star quarterback in college, but also came from a family with

very deep pockets. Thus, he was able to get into clubs under age and was seen partying

with celebrities such as Drake. The lifestyle that Johnny was immersed in led to a cocaine

and alcohol issue. A young man with too much money can lead to poor decisions that will

not only affect the player but the entire school as well. Furthermore, just because the third

string tackle does not get any playing time, does that mean he deserves to only be paid the

minimum? Should the player at the end of the bench get paid less than the starting point

guard for Duke University? Every student-athlete puts in the same amount of work as the

starters, but because of scheme, age, or talent, they might not receive as much playing time.

The counterargument does not stop at just the pay scale. If the NCAA is going to

implement a free market where athletes are compensated for their services, then larger

“Fortune 500” universities will have the opportunity to pay higher salaries compared to the

smaller schools who do not have the same financial means. Schools such as the University

of Texas and Notre Dame are able to pay higher salaries compared to smaller schools due

to their profits from football and national television deals, putting the smaller schools at a

disadvantage. Universities will suffer and lose millions in profits resulting in cutting other

programs that football pays for.

I argue that college athletes should be compensated, but I believe in education and

what college athletics should be centered around. The problem rooted in the pay scale

concept is that the “student” will be thoroughly removed from the term “student-athlete.” A

Lipson 33

pay scale will change the way high school athletes approach their recruiting. Teams will

now have the chance recruit an athlete based on salary and not the benefits of the

university, such as education and campus lifestyle. High school students may now be

inclined to follow the money just like the free agency in the NFL and NBA. This will ruin

what it means to get an education, as players will seek the job where they can get paid the

most. At this point, the athletes are not students but professional athletes seeking a payday.

It will affect how students approach their high school education. Studying will take a

backseat to training because the athlete knows that a payday is coming if the focus is solely

on sports. Especially when schools are aware that the Division 1 starting college football

player is worth an average of $574,000. Academics will serve no purpose for any student-

athlete. Athletes will see college as an opportunity to cash in on talent despite the sport.

This issue will also tip the scale even further than it already is.

The free market pay scale model will ruin competitive college athletics. College

athlete transfers are at an all-time high and according to the NCAA, 40 percent of athletes

transfer away from their original committed school by the end of their sophomore year.

Further research reveals that 90 percent of athletes who transferred during the 2014

season did so for athletic reasons (“Tracking Transfers, 2014”). That is a staggering

number considering students are there to receive an education. Transferring is difficult; the

NCAA makes a player jump through multiple hoops if they decide to leave their school.

Occasionally, a player loses a year of eligibility or must transfer twice, first to a community

college. When faced with the opportunity to leave, players often stay because not only is it

easier but they can also stay at their school and earn a degree. If money becomes the

Lipson 34

driving factor in college athletics, players may see the positives outweigh the negatives

when it comes to transferring. Students will look at their situation the same way

professional athletes do. They can retire from the game or continue to be the last man on

the bench making the league minimum.

A trickledown effect in college athletics gives backing to the counterargument

against paying college athletes. Paying basketball and football players based on play will

have a trickledown effect to every other athlete that plays for the school. For instance, a

school like Michigan State University makes over $35 million in profits strictly from its

football program, $30 million more than the next school on the list (Jasthi, 2014). This puts

Michigan at an unfair advantage for the rest of their sports. If pay for play was

implemented, Michigan would have enough money to offer high wage salaries to athletes in

women’s programs or smaller men’s sports. This would create a larger discrepancy

between the rich schools and the smaller universities. The pay for play model may never

work and could ruin college athletics completely.

Maybe the answer is not to pay the athletes, but to provide them with other

opportunities to support themselves. Maybe student-athletes would embrace an

alternative to getting paid and even benefit from a reform other than income or salary for

play. The Pac-12 tested eight different possible options for college athletic reform. Paying

athletes was the favorite, but slightly behind was a reform based on time commitment.

Sixty-two percent of students said that their college experience would be much more

enjoyable if the school’s made volunteer workouts actually voluntary. Students do not want

to lose games but want to see the non-practice hours extended in a way that would allow

Lipson 35

them to have part-time jobs. If granted, students could utilize their free time to work or

socialize. It is interesting that students can be satisfied with more free time over financial

stability. However, the coaches, players, schools, and conferences are investing time and

resources to win, so rewarding Division I athletes with more free time is not a plausible

situation.

College athletics has proven to be one of the most profitable businesses in the

country. In recent years, players have tried to cash in on their likeness in video games and

jerseys. This has led to multiple lawsuits against the NCAA and turned the tables on

universities as athletes search for more power. The current scholarship model for college

athletics does not work because of the poor communication and handling of the rules

under the NCAA. The flawed regulations from the NCAA rulebook have created a corrupt

environment that will only continue to worsen as the profits become larger. Then again, the

proposed pay for play model creates more problems for college athletics than it already

has. Roadblocks from Title IX also stand in the way of a pay scale model. College athletics

need to have a plan implemented in which both sides benefit, but a reform where players

and officials can meet in the middle. So the question is: where is that median?

I believe that a three-step reform can be beneficial to everyone involved in college

football. First, every college athlete on the roster and on scholarship should receive a full

scholarship. Partial scholarships are a way for a university to save money while still getting

the full commitment from an athlete. It is like signing a free agent on the cheap. These are

not professional athletes and every player should have all expenses covered by the

university. Teams do have walk-on athletes who do not travel with the team or play, but

Lipson 36

they should still receive a stipend for their participation. Walk-on athletes should receive

the minimum wage, just like a job. They are not worth as much as an athlete on scholarship

because, in most cases, they will never see the field; however, $8.00 an hour for four one-

hour practices, five days a week, comes out to a respectable $160 a week. Not nearly

enough to live on, but it is a step in the right direction and an improvement from the

current rules.

For some reason, scholarships are not fully guaranteed and can be revoked for a

variety of reasons, one of which is when the athlete can no longer play the sport due to a

medical issue. A university can revoke a scholarship if a player gets hurt while participating

in the sport. Every scholarship should be fully guaranteed for every athlete who stays in

good standing with the school both academically and legally. This gives assurance to the

students that they will be able to finish their education even if they suffer an injury that

prevents them from playing again. Attached to the scholarship should also be a medical

plan covered by the school up to 10 years after school, and should cover every athlete on-

campus. Over 90 percent of Division I college athletes will never go professional, but many

will suffer from injuries sustained in college. Paying for procedures after graduation can be

extremely expensive and can be compared to a student paying thousands of dollars in

college loans. A student-athlete should know that they are in good hands no matter what

happens. I described a scenario earlier in the study where many college athletes live below

the poverty line despite being on scholarship. This is because the NCAA fails to recognize

that scholarships do not cover all the necessary expenses, leaving many students without

enough money to eat. In this proposed reform, scholarships would be raised based on

Lipson 37

attendance. Capped scholarships would be a thing of the past and scholarship amounts

would continue to increase according to inflation.

The second part of a three-part reform would include the use of an education

lockbox. This lockbox would be funded by the university, conference, and the NCAA, using

profits from ticket sales, television revenues, and profits from the NCAA as a whole. The

education lockbox would be used in the same way as a trust fund. The NCAA would

determine the amount that is fair for all Division I athletes and it would remain the same

across the board. No matter the sport or gender, all Division I athletes would receive the

same amount of money upon graduation. Division II and Division III athletes would receive

less. This education lockbox will only be given to athletes who keep their scholarship

through all four years of school. If a player is expelled or kicked off the team for any reason,

the lockbox will not be provided. Thus, a student will only be given the education lockbox if

the student-athlete graduates. These contingency rules will encourage student-athletes to

finish their degree, perform well in school, and follow the rules and laws of college football.

Student-athletes who leave early to turn pro will not receive the education lockbox unless

they return to school at some point to finish their degree. The education lockbox is key to a

fair reform that benefits all college athletes. It will offer a safe way to pay for play while

holding athletes accountable. The NCAA will still be able to pay players while

communicating that they are a non-profit educational institution.

The third and final part of the reform is finally letting players gain access to a

commercial free market. The NCAA would finally be able to drop the rules based on

amateur status that do not allow athletes to sign autographs or profit from their own

Lipson 38

image. The NCAA can adopt Olympic amateur rules to allow students to seek reward for

their own image. This would benefit the players because they could finally earn money for

all the exposure they receive. Student-athletes would be allowed to sign autographs, make

paid appearances, and appear in commercials for profit. As a result, scandals across the

board would be reduced and the NCAA could stop ignoring the fact that Division I athletes

continue to profit from their image. This would benefit the students, while the schools

would not have to determine how much each player earns. Student-athletes would not earn

money from the school using their image, but they could go out and try to earn their own

money. Rules that would be implemented would be that a student couldn’t advertise

anything considered detrimental to the school image, such as alcohol or cigarettes. Second,

a student could not advertise a school’s rival sponsor. For example, if Nike and Gatorade

sponsor the university, an athlete would not be allowed to appear in commercials for

Adidas or PowerAde. To avoid a conflict of interest, student-athletes would only participate

in sponsorship opportunities offseason so that they could focus on their academics and

sport during the season. This also silences the critics who say a quarterback should be paid

more than a woman soccer player due to the value they provide for the school. This allows

a way for the school to stay out of the conversation while a star college football player can

profit from his success. It might seem unfair that a star at a big university will get more

opportunities to earn money than a student-athlete at a small school, but that is how free

market operates.

This three-part reform that I developed is supported by the facts and anecdotes in

this study. Through first-hand interviews, student-athlete testimonies, and study-

Lipson 39

supported facts, I have been able to create and support my argument. College athletes

should be paid and will eventually be paid in the coming years. Sports will always be a

business and from the Little League World Series, to college athletics, to professional

leagues; sports will continue to thrive economically and this will always result in people

trying to profit from all aspects of athletics. Casey Wasserman, CEO of the world-renowned

sports agency, Wasserman Media Group, said it best, “Sports will continue to be more and

more valuable while movies and television will become more and more challenged. Sports

is predictable and replicable in a world where almost nothing else is.”

Work Cited

Eveleth, R. (2014, April 1). If Men Get Paid to Play College Sports, Title IX Says Women Do, Too. Retrieved April 30, 2015, from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/if-men-win-pay-play-rights-female-athletes-will-have-get-paid-too-180950338/?no-ist

Gaines, C. (2013, January 16). The 25 Schools That Make The Most Money In College Football. Retrieved April 29, 2015, from http://www.businessinsider.com/the-25-schools-that-make-the-most-money-in-college-football-2013-1#2-michigan--85-million-24

Gorham, C. (2015, February 23). Inside knowledge on Arizona Athletics [Telephone interview].

Gould, M. (2014, October 14). Cheating Scandals: The Legacy of College Football. Retrieved April 30, 2015, from http://atyourlibrary.org/sports/cheating-scandals-legacy-college-football-0

Gutting, G. (2012, March 15). The Myth of the 'Student-Athlete' Retrieved April 30, 2015, from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/the-myth-of-the-student-athlete/?_r=1

Lipson 40

Jamieson, D. (2015, March 21). Obama Calls On NCAA To Rethink The Way It Protects And Punishes Athletes. Retrieved April 30, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/21/obama-ncaa-scholarships_n_6911804.html

Jasthi, S. (2014, May 6). Most Profitable College Football Schools and Conferences - NerdWallet. Retrieved April 30, 2015, from http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/cities/most-profitable-college-football-schools-conferences/

Kaburakis, A., Pierce, D., Cianfrone, B., & Paule, A. (2012). Is it Still "In the Game"; or Has Amateurism Left the Building? NCAA Student-Athletes' Perceptions of Commercial Activity and Sports Video Games. Journal of Sport Management, 26(4), 285-305. Retrieved April 29, 2014, from http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/78382938/still-game-has-amateurism-left-building-ncaa-student-athletes-perceptions-commercial-activity-sports-video-games

Massive cheating scandal at UNC included athletes, fake classes and automatic grades. (2014, October 23). Retrieved April 30, 2015, from http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/23/massive-cheating-scandal-at-unc-scandal-included-athletes-fake-classes-and/

Mitchell, H. (2014, January 6). Students are not Professional Athletes. Retrieved April 30, 2015, from http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/01/06/ncaa-athletes-should-not-be-paid

Nance-Nash, S. (2011, September 13). NCAA Rules Trap Many College Athletes in Poverty - DailyFinance. Retrieved April 30, 2015, from http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/09/13/ncaa-rules-trap-many-college-athletes-in-poverty

Schoen Berland, P. (2015, January 1). STUDENT-ATHLETE TIME DEMANDS APRIL 2015. Retrieved April 29, 2015, from http://www.cbssports.com/images/Pac-12-Student-Athlete-Time-Demands-Obtained-by-CBS-Sports.pdf

Strauss, B. (2014, November 28). Still Awaiting Union Ruling, Northwestern Players Focus on Field. Retrieved April 30, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/29/sports/ncaafootball/-still-awaiting-union-ruling-athletes-focus-on-field-.html

Syrios, A. (2014, September 16). The NCAA Racket: $10 Billion ‘Non-Profit’ Organization. Retrieved April 30, 2015, from http://www.valuewalk.com/2014/09/ncaa-business/

Lipson 41

Tracking transfer in Division I Men's Basketball. (2014, November 24). Retrieved April 28, 2015, from http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/tracking-transfer-division-i-men-s-basketball

Travis, C. (2014, June 6). Manziel episode could stagger NCAA. Retrieved April 30, 2015, from http://www.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/johnny-manziel-autograph-payment-episode-could-stagger-ncaa-going-forward-080613

Wolken, D. (2014, October 27). NCAA's Mark Emmert hopes members revisit rule on autographs. Retrieved April 30, 2015, from

Wyche, S. (2009, January 28). Dockett moves past rough childhood to star for Cardinals. Retrieved April 30, 2015, from http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/story/09000d5d80e68044/article/dockett-moves-past-rough-childhood-to-star-for-cardinals