In a competitive market, companies cannot exploit workers in this way for long, as rival firms will hire them away at higher salaries. In basketball, however, the NCAA cartel prevents that, dictating limits on pay (essentially college costs) and even penalizing transfers to other schools. Strict rules also prevent college athletes from signing lucrative endorsement deals or accepting gifts beyond a certain amount.
Amazingly, the NCAA convinces its fans that athletes are treated fairly. In particular, male college athletes are paid remarkably little for the revenue they bring to their universities.
Take Kevin Durant, for instance. After a stunning freshman season with the Texas Longhorns in 2008, Mr. Durant elected to forgo his final three years of college and entered the NBA draft. Selected by the Seattle Supersonics (now the Oklahoma City Thunder), he agreed to a contract paying $3.5 million in the first year. By contrast, his yearly compensation (in the form of room, board, books and tuition fees at Texas) amounted to about $33,120, less than 1% of what was offered by the Supersonics...
Soon after entering the NBA, Mr. Durant further augmented his earnings by signing a $72 million deal with Nike; he inked other endorsement contracts with Gatorade, EA Sports and Upper Deck.
Of course, most athletes don't end up signing big contracts to play in the pros. But these athletes don't make out well either,
They may not even end up with the basic skills necessary to succeed in other workplaces, since only a minority of student-athletes in major sports even graduate (25% in top-ranked University of Connecticut men's basketball, for example). Long practices and missed classes make it difficult to succeed academically. A recent study funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation shows the academic performance of athletes is lower than non-athletes even at Division III schools.
Why don't college athletes organize?
First, the "workers" are around for only three or at most four playing seasons, making it hard to build up much of a movement. Second, coaches control playing time and enormously influence career success, so it is the rare college kid who will incur the coach's wrath to form any kind of insurrection. Finally, most players don't have a lot of contact with the members of other teams. But if you see them whispering before the tipoffs this weekend, you'll know why.
An Additional Observation
The authors note that coaches' and administrators' salaries account for 32% of total athletic department expenses. Without presenting empirical support, I believe that a few profitable sports subsidize the others, both in men's athletics and women's. Are cross country teams money makers? As a former cross country runner, most parents don't even show up to meets.
Posts
Some (probably most)people will not agree with me, but I believe college basketball players should not get paid more than their full scholarships. Yes they bring a lot of revenue in for their college, and yes they might struggle in their academics, but this is the choice they made. They could easily choose not to play and just focus on their degree. Playing basketball for college is a trade off, you trade your studying time and your degree for maybe a chance at the NBA and being set for the rest of your life. Some students do research for their colleges and that brings in profit, (maybe not nearly as much as the athletic dept) but I don't see a union forming to try and get them paid more money.
ReplyDeleteL. G.
I believe college athletes are priviledged to play the sport and get a degree at the same time. The lucky few might even end their college careers early to play pro if their opportunity costs become to great. I can also see the NCAA ( if viewed as a market ) distancing itself from competition to a more monopolistic structure due to the fact that they have numerous rules and regulations.
ReplyDelete--Jordan Finstad
I don't think college atheletes should get paid more than their scholorship. They are already pretty much getting paid if you think about it, they are getting their school paid for. That's a really big deal. They can graduate debt free and not worry about paying off any loans for school.
ReplyDelete-Zach Young
If you had the potential to maybe make it big you would more than likely give it a shot. However the reality is that it is probably going to end with college. Therefore a player should go for their dreams, yet concentrate more on that scholarship they recieved instead of being priviliged & showered with shiny/appeling distractions because In the end that is what is going to make their living. Maybe we are all just jealous but I would have to agree with the majority and say that players in college should be satisfied with the scholarship.
ReplyDeleteYour Student,
Laura Garza
I am a college basketball player, and I do not agree with the need for college players to get paid more than their scholarships. What many people do not realise is that not only do the super star athletes get their scholarship money, but many of them recieve more money in other types of payments. Athletes are VERY well taken care of, and in return they have to practice and put in the hours. The opprontuity cost (missed class and constant travel) for them may be great but they choose to do it. Many people would take their place in a heartbeat, so instead of athletes demanding to be paid more they should be greatful for the opprotunities they have already been given. If they have the chance to get paid the "big bucks" for going professional, that is the reward they get for working hard while playing for the NCAA.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Katie. College athletes should value the privileges that they receive in whatever form they present themselves. But let us not forget that being a star athlete is a talent and gift, so I feel that they are truly blessed to have the opportunity to be able to profit from the skills that they have. As with all opportunities, the cost of what you give up to get ahead is different for all. Even if the players do not benefit directly from the total revenue received from the NCAA, they still are better off than most college students that don't have sports or academics to fall back on.
ReplyDeleteWhile probably not a popular opinion, I don't see a problem with schools making tons of money off of athletes and athletic programs. It's not as if they tell these athletes that they will make money. Everyone knows that if they play college someone other than they will profit. And frankly, its good for the economy if a school can make a bunch of money on its team. Because to make that money they'll need promotional products, tv time, and sheer man-power. They have to pay someone for this, thus increasing the profit for area businesses. I don't see why people have a problem with this. Athletes do this by choice, and they get a good education. Schools have seen an opportunity and taken it...say hello to capitalism and a free economy
ReplyDeleteI must disagree that the athletes need to be paid more than their scholarship. They are getting a full or almost full ride through college. I am going to go to college in the fall as theater major. There aren't very many if any opportunities for me to get a full ride through college.
ReplyDeleteTo the point of that they make money for their schools, yes they do make lots of money for their schools, but so do other students. I was involved in a musical production last semester. It was a very long process and I lost a lot of sleep over it. My grades also suffered somewhat, not unlike what the athletes go through. Was I paid for all the work I did? No, even though the school received a good amount of money because of all our work. So I believe that the athletes shouldn't get paid for their work they do even if they bring money into the school.
Sara Mac Aulay
If an athlete is fortunate enough to receive a full scholarship to a major university that in it self should be enough compensation. The odds of a college athlete turning pro in any sport is very low therefore the universities should strive for a higher graduate percentage among it's athletes so that they can be productive beyond their college years.....
ReplyDeleteI agree with Charlotte Hawkins-Mckinney. Those athletes that get their school paid for is a huge deal! Especially when they can graduate debt free. The odds of an athelete turning pro are low but either way it works out great because they can make a large amount of money after college and get college paid for, or just graduate and get college paid for then move into their careers. I was a college athelte for three years and my coaches did work hard to make sure that we did our homework and were in contact with our teachers when we had to miss class, so i feel that most universities probably do that but maybe not all of them. Playing college sports and going to school at the same time does teach your time management which is a skill that every adult needs to master.
ReplyDeleteAs an NCAA D1 athlete, I have personally experienced much of what is discussed. As for the cross country not bringing in revenue, many schools hold are able (if lucky) to host one meet per year. In cross country, teams never run at the same location twice (unless returning for a post season meet such as Conference, Regionals, or Nationals), unlike football, basketball, and baseball that have multiple home games. Though cross country does not make much money, its complimenting season does: Track and Field. Track brings in a quite large amount of money with respect to its minute avid fan base.
ReplyDeleteI do not think athletes should get paid more than their scholarships. They get to attend school for free and in the end have zero debt when they enter the real world. As for those athletes that decide to forgo their education and chance the pros, in their mind the incentive outweighs the opportunity cost. Honestly speaking if I had the chance to make it pro and not finish school, I would take that chance and maybe try and finish school at a later time.
ReplyDeleteYour Student,
Cameron Curry