Why the NCAA Needs to Play Fair - Pay n Play
As March Madness plays out on basketball courts across the country, a class action lawsuit is taking the NCAA to a another kind of court. A Federal one.
The issue? Player pay. Or rather, lack thereof.
CBS and Turner Broadcasting understand the power of March Madness, so much so that they paid nearly $11 billion for the long-term rights to broadcast the tournament. And hey, why not? The NCAA Men's basketball tournament generates more advertising revenue than the post season broadcasts of any of the major professional sports leagues -- even the NFL.
College basketball is an industry. A major industry. That is, unless you're a player...or should I say, "student-athlete". In that case, basketball is an amateur sport.
But how is this fair to the players?
As talented as many of these athletes are, less than 1% will play in the NBA. And yet, they are effectively already professional, in that they're producing a quality of play spectators want to see and advertisers will pay up for.
So, imagine if college athletes were paid for their work. A study conducted by NCPA - Drexel Sports management department did exactly that - concluding that the average basketball player was worth approximately $290,000 a year with some of the top guys worth well over $1 million, excluding potential endorsement deals, which the NCAA bans.
Seems like a lot of money? Not compared to the coaches. On average, coaches in the tournament collect a salary of $1.4 million. The top coaches in basketball and football, Mike Krzyzewski and Nick Saban, are each paid over $7 million a year. Both have won multiple national championships and I'd bet both could deliver championships if they were coaching lower level colleges or even high school. But would they be paid the same way? Not a chance. That's because the talent level of the players wouldn't create a level of play that's worth billions in TV revenue. Yes, the coaches, programs, schools, leagues, TV networks, broadcasters, executives and even the much maligned NCAA all play hugely valuable roles in creating great college sports leagues. But, everyone on that list is paid well - except for the players. That's unfair.
The most common argument against paying college athletes is that they are already compensated through the value of their athletic scholarships. But, for many top tier college athletes, this is a bad deal. That's because their value as an athlete is worth more than the scholarship .
The bigger issue is that the value of a scholarship, while great in theory, is illusory for many athletes because their educational experience pales in comparison to other students. Before you blame the athletes, consider the reality of big-time college sports. The time commitment rivals that of a full-time job and then some. And, seriously, how focused would you be on your classes this week if you were a 20 year old about to play in the Sweet 16?
Most importantly, too many schools prioritize eligibility and not education. Kids are admitted with different academic standards, and classes and majors are selected or even dictated to players with a focus on eligibility. Graduation rates in major sports prove the point; basketball and football athletes are less likely to graduate than their non-athlete peers.
Others make an argument that doing away with amateurism would ruin college athletics. The problem with this argument is that it's decades late. Major college sports are functioning like pro sports. College athletes may be amateurs in the strictest sense because they aren't paid to play, but they are "paid" through tuition, room and board and therefore they can and do dedicate most of their time to the practice of their sport. Often they live separately from other students and experience a life that is more like a professional athlete's, than a student's, minus the salary.
0 comments :
Post a Comment