🏈 Why do people think that college athletes/families are being exploited

[srollins]

by universities? I have seen it over and over the past few years, now again with the Cam Newton case. There are even sports writers/tv personalities (Desmond Howard for example) saying that universities are making millions and the athletes and families are being exploited.

How is it that they overlook the fact that the kids are getting a free education. They are getting a chance to showcase their talent to NFL scouts that they wouldn't otherwise have a chance to do. And they get the recognition and adoration of the fanbase they represent. Not to mention, if they are truly good enough and worthy of gobs of money because of their talent, they are gonna get it in as little as 3 years anyway. This argument makes me sick to think that one day I might not watch college football any more because enough people with this attitude might get together and make college football a pro league which I have no real interest in watching.

Am I missing something on this issue? Thoughts?

 

[reger60]

Yeah, Desmond Howard never profited from playing college football. He was exploited. :lance:

 

[Hoos4Tide]

Well it almost seems like College Football has really, in the minds of many, become an enterprise, where theres the top guys, all the way down to the wage earners--the football players. But that opinion is ridiculous, college football was never meant to be like that. College Football is about going to school and playing football, not playing football while at school; its about representing the school. I mean, all the players also have a choice as to where they go... its not like they have to play football or anything, they're making the choice to "get exploited".... Anyways, with that said, the whole "exploited" issue is ridiculous, no one is getting exploited.

 

[TheChief]

Where I see it is in the reality that universities are willing and capable of throwing six million dollars at coaches. That is perfectly legal, but in my opinion if there is that much money to be spent then it would behoove universities and the athletes that enable this financial boon to also pay athletes.

If the premise is that a good coach benefits a school by winning and driving up the value of profitable and marketable teams, then the team is a business. It is a good business decision to hire the best coach to market that school, i.e. Saban at Alabama. It's a good hire for Alabama financially. However, this view of the school as a product does not jive with any sort of stated mission that school is a place to gain an education and that the team is somehow amateur in its status. If the amateur status is gone, schools have a duty to pay all of the athletes in their employee.

Should schools pay players then? Probably not. Should schools implement a salary cap on coaches? In my opinion yes, and a portion of the tremendous profits from athletics should be poured back into the educational framework.

 

[foshman]

by universities? I have seen it over and over the past few years, now again with the Cam Newton case. There are even sports writers/tv personalities (Desmond Howard for example) saying that universities are making millions and the athletes and families are being exploited.

How is it that they overlook the fact that the kids are getting a free education. They are getting a chance to showcase their talent to NFL scouts that they wouldn't otherwise have a chance to do. And they get the recognition and adoration of the fanbase they represent. Not to mention, if they are truly good enough and worthy of gobs of money because of their talent, they are gonna get it in as little as 3 years anyway. This argument makes me sick to think that one day I might not watch college football any more because enough people with this attitude might get together and make college football a pro league which I have no real interest in watching.

Am I missing something on this issue? Thoughts?

College football governs its players based on an antiquated model that is no longer applicable to the business of college football. They no longer govern themselves with that model since revenues started increasing astronomically. The financial growth of the game allows for TV netowrks, conferences, Bowls, Universities, and even coaches to earn salaries/profits at incredible, and exaggerated, rates. The players, who do most of the work, are left with the same compensation that players got 50 years ago.

The idea that they are the treated the same as students is a joke. Students on academic or merit scholarships are allowed to hold jobs. Student athletes are not. Students on scholarship can meet with prospective employers at any time. Student athletes cannot. Student athletes are expected, dare I say forced, to put in 20+ hours a week without additional compensation. Students on scholarship are not. Athletes have no control over their image and likenesses should the NCAA, Conference, or school decide to make money off of it. That doesn't happen with scholarship students.

To make matters worse the NCAA is constantly looking to maximize their profits and share it with everyone but the players. When a player seeks or accepts further compensation he is derided and cast out of the system.

Ultimately we are all capitalists. I wouldn't work for pennies while my company and bosses got rich. These kids shouldn't have to either.

I'm not going to suggest that players should be salaried but I think the NCAA can take better care of their athletes. They can close scholarship loopholes that force kids to buy required school supplies. They can approve modest or improved stipends for normal living arrangements, that many academic scholarships provide. They can provide guaranteed lifelong health care for players that suffer debilitating injuries on the field. They can take a percentage of merchandise sales that bear students names or likenesses put it in an escrow account and then make equal payouts to graduating students each semester. (Note it would be important that all students receive the same payment in this scenario to preserve equality amongst the schools, but their are models that allow for that easily.)

I believe last year Alabama's football program made $92 million in revenue. Assuming $20k per athlete the compensation given to players was $1.70 million which equates to about 1.8% of the total revenues. In any other industry that would be considered incredibly unfair.

Had Marcel Dareus been an journalism major, on scholarship, who was flown to a party full of publishers and editors at the expense of a former classmate that was a working professional no one would have batted an eye. Because he's on an athletic scholarship he's vilified and forced to sit out 2 games.

To me it seems neither fair nor ethical to treat the players that way.

 

[foshman]

They are getting a chance to showcase their talent to NFL scouts that they wouldn't otherwise have a chance to do. And they get the recognition and adoration of the fanbase they represent. Not to mention, if they are truly good enough and worthy of gobs of money because of their talent, they are gonna get it in as little as 3 years anyway.

And to comment on this point directly I doubt very seriously the NCAA would just roll over and allow a NFL minor league to come in and offer the players any choice to showcase their talents to the NFL. The NCAA is the very definition of a monopoly.

As to your second point, few other industries force people to wait 3 years to profit if they have the skill set to succeed as a professional. Google hires people that are talented undergraduates all the time. Actors can work at any age if they are talented enough. Remember the 1990's supergroup Hanson? All teenagers. Even the industries that do require apprenticeships beyond a degree pay those apprentices.

 

[RollTideinGA]

It is all about the money, and as someone stated above the NCAA and colleges make millions off the backs of players. I've heard the argument that the players (on full scholarship) get a free education. Well yes, they do. But that education doesnt amount to what the school makes off that player. As much press as UA got this year (and AU) the schools could afford to pay some sort of fund for the players. With school, practitce, and media requirements these guys cant exactly go work at Target or Best Buy to earn some cash. Plus if you went into Best Buy and Mark Ingram was working in the store do you honstly think they could do their job, or get hasseled by fans or media?

My idea all along has been a savings account for the players. The school puts a certain amount into an account for each player. That player gets the full amount IF they graduate. If they leave early they lose a percentage. If they transfer they lose a percentage. If they are injured they get an amount based off the time they played (so a Freshman doesnt get what a Senior would).

It could work and it would end alot of these schemes. Well maybe not all.

 

[srollins]

And to comment on this point directly I doubt very seriously the NCAA would just roll over and allow a NFL minor league to come in and offer the players any choice to showcase their talents to the NFL. The NCAA is the very definition of a monopoly.

As to your second point, few other industries force people to wait 3 years to profit if they have the skill set to succeed as a professional. Google hires people that are talented undergraduates all the time. Actors can work at any age if they are talented enough. Remember the 1990's supergroup Hanson? All teenagers. Even the industries that do require apprenticeships beyond a degree pay those apprentices.

Other industries might not force people to wait 3 years to profit, but I don't consider a free education "not profiting". I look at it like this: if the athlete gets a free education and doesn't go on to the NFL, so what. I didn't get NFL money either. That's life. On the other hand, if an athlete gets his free education, then gets millions in NFL money for the things he learned in college (yes, these athletes learn their trade in college, its not like they are ready to go strait from High School to the NFL), then they profitted more than most people in this nation. The notion that athletes are exploited in any way just doesn't work for me.

If colleges weren't trying to help the kids become great and get noticed and eventually go on to the NFL I'd feel different, like they were indeed exploited. I believe that the fact is that every college in the nation has a staff of coaches that truly wants their players to do well and end up making money for their effort.

 

[foshman]

Other industries might not force people to wait 3 years to profit, but I don't consider a free education "not profiting". I look at it like this: if the athlete gets a free education and doesn't go on to the NFL, so what. I didn't get NFL money either. That's life. On the other hand, if an athlete gets his free education, then gets millions in NFL money for the things he learned in college (yes, these athletes learn their trade in college, its not like they are ready to go strait from High School to the NFL), then they profitted more than most people in this nation. The notion that athletes are exploited in any way just doesn't work for me.

If colleges weren't trying to help the kids become great and get noticed and eventually go on to the NFL I'd feel different, like they were indeed exploited. I believe that the fact is that every college in the nation has a staff of coaches that truly wants their players to do well and end up making money for their effort.

The difference is this; Without knowing where you went to school or what your degree is in I can safely say that your alma mater didn't make $50-100 million in revenue each season off of the work that you and your department did. If they did and all you got was 95% of what it took you to attend school each year I would say that your talents were exploited. If they did that, maintained the likeness to your image forever, refused to allow you to work for anyone for pay, forced you to work for them without pay, and blocked your access to a potential job in the free market for three years then you would be exploited about the same as college athletes.

 

[rammajamma]

I can't wait for the ducks to exploit the Barn. Go Ducks!

 

[psychojoe]

Perhaps the NFL caliber athletes could be considered exploited. but consider this: only a tiny percentage of those who receive D-1 scholarships out of HS could go straight from HS to the NFL. Aside from the additional "learning the trade" that takes place at the college level there is the maturing physically, the taking advantage of ultra sophisticated strength and conditioning programs in your higher level conferences. Add to that, for those who do not move on to the NFL, but just get their degrees and enter the business world or the coaching world with their diploma and a world that may open up to them because they played football at (fill in big name school). Those guys shouldn't consider themselves exploited, but advantaged.

I think that the schools should be allowed to do more for the athletes (why should a scholarshipped player need a Pell Grant to get by) than they are under present rules, but the NCAA should not be a farm system for the NFL, NBA, etc.

 

[CRMSNtide]

The experience of playing football at a big university while getting an education and maturing could be considered priceless, most don't get that opportunity.
Think of the father figure coaches that teach you about football and life, the friends you make, the stories you can tell your grand kids.

For NFL type talent, they get quality coaching and the opportunity to be seen play at a high level.
They can cash their lottery ticket to the NFL soon enough.

I do wish the athletes could get more benefits of some kind, but the deal they have now isn't a bad one IMO.

 

[foshman]

Perhaps the NFL caliber athletes could be considered exploited. but consider this: only a tiny percentage of those who receive D-1 scholarships out of HS could go straight from HS to the NFL. Aside from the additional "learning the trade" that takes place at the college level there is the maturing physically, the taking advantage of ultra sophisticated strength and conditioning programs in your higher level conferences. Add to that, for those who do not move on to the NFL, but just get their degrees and enter the business world or the coaching world with their diploma and a world that may open up to them because they played football at (fill in big name school). Those guys shouldn't consider themselves exploited, but advantaged.

Whether or not a player if of NFL, MLB, or NBA caliber is irrelevant in my mind. But assuming a player isn't talented enough to make it as a highly paid professional athlete then is it not the very definition of exploitation to have institutions reaping wind fall profits off of his (or her) work without giving the kid equitable compensation when there is no future potential for the student athlete to share those windfall profits later on as professionals? I would say those who can't cut it as professionals are more exploited than those who can.

My argument is really twofold.

1. The compensation given back to the players is not even close to what it would be in a free market system.
2. The student athletes are not given the same freedoms/rights/benefits as scholarship students despite the NCAA insisting that they wish to treat both groups the same.

I think that the schools should be allowed to do more for the athletes (why should a scholarshipped player need a Pell Grant to get by) than they are under present rules, but the NCAA should not be a farm system for the NFL, NBA, etc.

This I agree with. I don't believe the NCAA should "pay" their athletes but I do think they can close scholarship gaps, guarantee insurance for debilitating injuries, provide a reasonable living stipend, and find a way to guarantee that a player doesn't lose their ability to finish their education because they get hurt or aren't good enough and play for a coach who decides to replace them.

As of now they do none of these things.

As such, I believe the NCAA is acting both unethically and disingenuously as it relates to this issue.

But I still love college football.

 

[Hoos4Tide]

Going along with what foshman says about doing more to help college athletes, as well as the idea someone raised that I think the university would have gladly funded Marcel Dareus's trip to Miami had he been an exceptionally bright business student, on a full scholarship, traveling to some kind of future leaders convention-- which is essentially what Dareus did except he is a football player-- there's no reason at all the University can't offer living expense stipends and such to football players. Think about this: the Academic Elite Scholarship at Bama (http://scholarships.ua.edu/types/elite.html) is given to a select few students per year who receive an $8500/yr. stipend plus a new laptop, in addition to the 'ol full ride. Now, just put that aside, but remember it. So, the NCAA states that all student-athletes must be offered no benefits that a normal student would not be offered under the same circumstances (I most certainly do not have the wording correct but I hope you agree that this is the basic jist, correct?). So, with the business student example, along with the presence of the Academic Elite Scholarship--which is given to exceptional high school students who could be of value in raising the standard of the University (hmm, football players fit that mold...)-- why can an athlete not be offered special benefits? To go further, and I hate to bring this up b/c it's bound to raise tension, but I think it is very analogous to "separate but equal", is it not? Keeping athletes separate in many regards but also not doing anything to give them unequal benefits? And of course we all know that "separate is inherently unequal." Therefore, we have to realize that athletes are very simply not equal and they should not be treated that way

My whole point is this: universities are already doing things to attract "normal" students to their school by giving incentives such as stipends to go along with the full ride scholarships, but they are in many ways, running a program that asks for solicitation to occur in light of the fact that a lot of recruits dont have the money to pay for the things beyond tuition in college. To me, following the guidelines of the NCAA--student athletes should be kept equal to other students-- already allows for stipends and special benefits to be given b/c they ARE to other students!! But for whatever reason there is just a huge disconnect there IMO.

 

[psychojoe]

Foshman, I'd say that the non NFL caliber athlete has a choice. if he really believes he is being exploited. Give up the sport and pay his own way. They are getting something of enormous value. Besides the education there is the recognition in the business world that being a former U of A (for example) player gets. A prospective employer is likely to give that favorable attention in a resume, a prospective business customer or client is likely to be favorably impressed. Sure there is a lot of hard work in season and out, but it is the price that they willingly pay.

Much of this is the fault of the NCAA. In their wisdom they decided that Alabama can offer no more than say Indiana State, as they would have an unfair advantage. There are 110 schools that they classify as in their bowl subdivision, but great differences in these 110 as far as income and resources allocated to sports are concerned. Many of these aspiring competitors say that they lose money on sports, and in an effort to appease them the NCAA places restrictions on those schools (maybe 30% of the 110) who have well off athletic programs.