Dunking for Dollars: College Athletes Should Be Paid

In the year 1995, the UCLA Bruins men's basketball team achieved the pinnacle of collegiate basketball success by winning the national championship. This triumphant team was led by Toby Bailey, who had recently graduated from Loyola High School just ten months prior, and Ed O'Bannon, a player who earned the prestigious title of Most Outstanding Player in the Final Four. Presently, Ed O'Bannon has transitioned into a career selling cars in Las Vegas, but his impact on the world of basketball persists, both through televised game replays of his on-court prowess and his contributions within the realm of the legal system.

In 2009, Ed O'Bannon played a central role in initiating a groundbreaking class-action lawsuit. This legal battle was directed against two formidable entities: the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and EA Sports, a prominent video game manufacturer responsible for producing NCAA basketball and football games. The lawsuit addressed a significant grievance — the unauthorized use of college athletes' names, images, and likenesses without just compensation.

Before college athletes even step onto the playing field within the NCAA, they are required to sign a document known as Form 08-3a. This document, an integral part of NCAA regulations, acknowledges and reinforces the notion that these athletes are amateurs. However, Rachael Marcus, an attorney closely involved in this case, contended that "the plaintiffs argue that by signing Form 08-3a... the association conspired to deny them the fees from their names." This legal battle exposed a stark reality; there exists a multitude of college athletes, akin to Ed O'Bannon, who shine brightly during their collegiate careers but often do not progress to earning substantial financial rewards. Instead, they conclude their college journeys without reaping the financial benefits that could have been rightfully theirs, given fair compensation for the utilization of their names, images, and likenesses.

The Rationale Behind Allowing Student-Athletes to Profit

The decision to allow student-athletes to benefit from their names and likenesses is driven by several compelling reasons. Primarily, it rectifies a longstanding imbalance where universities accumulate substantial revenue from their athletes' efforts without direct compensation to these individuals. Cork Gaines, a writer for Business Insider, succinctly encapsulates this issue by highlighting that "the 231 NCAA Division I schools with data available generated a total of $9.15 billion in revenue from college athletics during the 2015 fiscal year." College athletics has undoubtedly burgeoned into a multi-billion-dollar industry, where athletes' names and images contribute significantly to the revenue stream, yet the players themselves receive no share of these financial gains.

Contrary to the notion of pampered athletes enjoying lavish perks such as state-of-the-art locker rooms and sumptuous meals, the reality is often far removed from such materialistic facades. As former University of Connecticut star point guard Shabazz Napier candidly stated, "There are hungry nights when I go to bed starving." The disheartening truth that players like Napier, who led UConn to a national championship in 2014, can experience food insecurity while representing their universities is a stark reminder of the disparity between the perceived and actual quality of life for college athletes.

The risks associated with injuries in collegiate sports are another facet of this complex issue. In some instances, injuries can be far more devastating to an athlete's career than initially apparent. For example, Ben Strauss, a writer for The New York Times, reported a case involving University of Oklahoma forward Kyle Hardrick. In his freshman year, Hardrick suffered a meniscus tear during one of the early practices. While Hardrick's doctors recommended surgery, Oklahoma's medical staff disagreed and refused to fund the procedure. Despite undergoing the operation at his own expense, Hardrick faced the distressing consequence of the university revoking his scholarship due to uncertainties about his ability to return to peak performance.

It is worth noting that some universities have started reevaluating their policies regarding scholarship revocations. Strauss reported that many universities, alongside the NCAA, have recognized the ethical problems associated with revoking scholarships. In 2014, Northwestern University took a groundbreaking step by declaring its players as employees, thereby granting them rights to workers' compensation. However, the National Labor Relations Board intervened, asserting that since Northwestern was the sole institution to publicly make such a claim, its students should be classified as pupils rather than employees.

In 2019, California passed the "Fair Pay to Play Act," signaling a significant shift in the landscape of collegiate athletics. The NCAA's response was swift and stern, as it threatened to impose postseason bans on every California school that allowed its athletes to receive compensation for their names, images, and likenesses. This development underscores the contentious nature of the issue and the resistance to change within the established collegiate sports structure.

Quality of Education and Opportunities

Beyond the financial aspects, the disparity between the quality of education and opportunities afforded to student-athletes in comparison to their non-athlete peers remains a pressing concern. While the argument in defense of student-athletes receiving a free education holds some merit, the reality is often different, especially for those participating in revenue-generating sports like basketball and football.

A notable example of this disparity emerged in 2014 during an investigation at the University of North Carolina. The probe revealed a disturbing practice within the majority of the school's men's football and men's basketball teams—referred to as "revenue-generating" teams. These athletes were found to be enrolled in a "shadow curriculum," consisting of classes that essentially functioned as free passes, requiring minimal participation. Such courses deprived these athletes of a meaningful education, emphasizing the need for reform.

Ross's research revealed another disconcerting statistic: of all the athletes who competed in Division I football and men's basketball, only about one percent advanced to the next level of their respective sport. This leaves the remaining ninety-nine percent of athletes who graduate with degrees that may not necessarily ensure a high-quality post-collegiate career. As exemplified by individuals like Kyle Hardrick and Ed O'Bannon, who now work in an oil field and as a car salesman, respectively, the reality for many former athletes is far removed from the glamorous world of professional sports.

Boston Globe journalist Christopher Gasper aptly summarized the predicament faced by student-athletes, especially those in revenue-generating sports like basketball. Gasper contended that athletes like former Duke Basketball star Zion Williamson are "not student-athletes" but, instead, "employees of Coach Krzyzewski Incorporated." This perspective underscores a troubling reality—these athletes do not attend college primarily for education and personal development but rather to serve as star players, often for just one year, before transitioning to professional ranks.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the recent rule changes allowing college athletes to profit from their names, images, and likenesses mark a significant turning point in the landscape of college sports. It empowers student-athletes, benefits universities, and offers the potential for ethical reform within the system. While concerns persist, the benefits of this change far outweigh the drawbacks.

College sports, with its unique blend of passion and pride, will continue to thrive as it adapts to a new era of compensation and fairness for its dedicated athletes. The transformation of college athletics promises to provide student-athletes with a fair share of the revenue they generate, alleviate financial pressures, and address long-standing ethical issues within the NCAA. As the legal efforts of individuals like Ed O'Bannon and the struggles of athletes like Kyle Hardrick have shown, the future of college sports holds the potential for a more equitable and sustainable model that benefits all stakeholders involved.

References

1. O'Bannon v. NCAA, 802 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2015).
2. Gaines, C. (2016). The NCAA Made Over $1 Billion in Revenue in 2015—Here's Where It All Went. Business Insider.
3. Marcus, R. (2014). The Obannon Lawsuit: The NCAA's "Doomsday Scenario." Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 32, 239-253.
4. Strauss, B. (2015). A Player's-Eye View of NCAA Injustice. The New York Times.
5. McCann, M. (2019). California Governor Signs "Fair Pay to Play Act," Allowing College Athletes to Sign Endorsement Deals. Sports Illustrated.
6. Ross, D. (2019). NCAA Student-Athlete Participation: 1981-82 – 2018-19. NCAA Research.
7. Gasper, C. (2019). The College Basketball Scandal Doesn't Mean Amateurism Is Dead. The Boston Globe.