Share the Wealth: Saving College Sports From Hypocrisy

The institution of college sports, for its own sake, needs to stop pretending it is something that it very clearly is not. It is not the embodiment of integrity, or the protector of the noble virtue of “mens sana in corpore sano” (Latin for “a healthy mind in a healthy body). The reality is that college sports is a multi-billion-dollar industry built on the backs of athletes who go unpaid while their coaches, athletic directors, and NCAA executives make millions. By hypocritically pretending to be something different, college sports has set itself up for an endless succession of devastating scandals that tear down the facade of purity carefully constructed by the NCAA. It’s obvious to even the casual fan that “student-athletes” like Dennis Smith Jr. do not attend schools like N.C. State for the education. They are there to play, which is why it has become unsurprising, almost mundane, when players like Smith Jr. are implicated in scandals consisting of players receiving “improper benefits” to attend a university, the most recent of which is being investigated by the FBI. These “improper benefits” are a calculated investment by programs and affiliated apparel companies based on the projected value that stars like Smith Jr. are expected to provide. Otherwise, why would schools take the risk? So why not make these benefits “proper” (so to speak) and allow players to profit off of their own likeness and receive fair compensation from their schools for the value they bring to their sports programs? The NCAA -- or a more competent and trustworthy organization -- could regulate the compensation of players, but as long as we insist that student-athletes remain “amateurs” it seems inevitable that more scandals will continue to follow.

When people defend the concept of not paying college athletes, they argue that a free college education is valuable compensation in-and-of-itself. The price of attending college in America has grown exponentially in the last couple of decades (213 percent to be exact). In 2017, Americans collectively owe $1.4 trillion in student-debt and it seems that number will only continue to rise. So it’s hard to feel bad for college athletes, who never have to worry about the price of attending the school they play for. And yet, are the most profitable “student-athletes” really getting any value from the education they have earned? Recent scandals of academic fraud at schools like North Carolina suggest otherwise. In a New York Times article by Marc Tracy, the NCAA explained that North Carolina athletics could not be punished for helping athletes maintain their eligibility through fake classes “because the ‘paper’ classes were not available exclusive to athletes. Other students at North Carolina had access to the fraudulent classes too.” This is a pitiful excuse. So what if other students could enroll in these fake classes? It’s obvious to any objective observer that these classes were created for “student-athletes” and Tracy’s article explains that the NCAA knows that those who attended these classes were “disproportionately athletes, especially in the lucrative, high-profile sports of football and men’s basketball.” It would be naive to suggest that North Carolina is alone in practices like this. In the Vice Sports article “Amateurism Isn’t Educational: Debunking the NCAA’s Dumbest Lie,” Patrick Hruby paints a convincing picture of the true state of the education of “student-athletes” that perform in the most profitable sports, explaining that they are often alarmingly unprepared and unqualified for college, spend more time on athletics than their studies, and are directed towards eligibility-maintaining curriculum that result in “Potemkin degrees.” If this is the “education” that the most profitable players are receiving as compensation for their play, it is a worthless, hollow reward for the billions in revenue that they generate each year.

If college sports were actually the embodiment of integrity, the NCAA would not feel the need to constantly craft dubious legal protections for itself. The term “student-athlete” itself is a fraud -- a false shield for the NCAA and universities hide behind as they continue to exploit athletes. In his aforementioned article for Vice, Hruby explains that the term “student-athlete” was created as a defense against a workers’ compensation suit in 1953 by Ernest Nemeth, a football player for the University of Denver, in order to claim to the “courts and the public alike that Nemeth and his peers were simply young scholars who happened to be very good at sports [. . .] and not de-facto school employees entitled to pay and legal protections.” If this were actually true, that student-athletes are students who “just happen” to be good at sports, the NCAA would not feel the need to constantly repeat this term over and over for decades, as if saying it enough will make it true, or at the very least believable. Another example of the NCAA’s questionable relationship with the law is the way it handles the rights of athletes regarding the use of their own likeness and of the profits generated by their accomplishments. The article “The Shame of College Sports” by Taylor Branch explains that “the NCAA claims that student-athletes have no property rights in their own athletic accomplishments. Yet, in order to be eligible to play, college athletes have to waive their rights to proceeds from any sales based on their athletic performance.” It is bizarre that this illustration of circular logic is able to protect the NCAA, and yet the organization continues to remain basically invulnerable to suits like that of former UCLA star Ed O’Bannon, who argued that players should be compensated for the commercial use of their likeness. The NCAA’s  crafty manipulation of language and the legal system is not what we expect of someone who is innocent, but rather someone who is trying to hide their dishonest behavior.

A common argument for not paying “student-athletes” is that paying them would greatly increase the disparity between the college athletes that play the most profitable sports, football and men’s basketball, and the other athletes who play more obscure sports. Especially concerning for opponents of paying college athletes is the imagined effect that to pay them would tarnish the equality between male and female college athletes that Title IX established. Title IX states that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” In what seems like a contradiction of Title IX promise for “equal benefits,” it is very likely that if schools were mandated to pay college athletes or personal endorsements were allowed, football and men’s basketball players would receive most of the compensation. This seems logical, given that they usually generate a large share of the revenue for most universities and the NCAA. Value, demonstrated by revenue generated, would be rewarded proportionally. Title IX can only reasonably guarantee equal opportunity, which paying college athletes would not diminish. Refusing to compensate male college athletes in proportion to the value they generate because they would initially be paid more than female college athletes in most cases makes as much sense as lowering NBA salaries to WNBA levels to create equality of pay -- depriving one group of their rights for the benefit of another is the opposite of equality. It is not discrimination if male college athletes make more money than female college athletes, as long as female college athletes have legitimately equal opportunity to attain more compensation -- which will happen if their sports become more popular and profitable. At some schools certain female sports are already more popular and profitable than their male counterparts. At Stanford for example, the women’s basketball team generates an average of $18.6 million a year in revenue, while the men’s basketball team only generates an average of $6.8 million a year. In this case, the Stanford women’s basketball players should (and would) receive more compensation than the men’s basketball players. Wouldn’t it actually create more equality if the Stanford women’s players were fairly compensated for their greater contribution? Stanford is an exception, but it does demonstrate that given equal opportunity, there is no reason that women’s sports cannot rise to, or exceed, the level of profitability of their male counterparts. As long as compensation is decided by the value generated by teams and players and not by gender, equality of opportunity would not be diminished but rather fully realized as women’s teams that are more profitable would finally be able to enjoy the rewards for their superior performance.

I grew up preferring college sports to professional sports. In large part, this was due to the fact that young college athletes felt more human and relatable than the superhuman professionals, playing for pure love of the game rather than a million-dollar paycheck. Would paying college athletes ruin this by making college sports basically professional? The problem is, the institution of college sports already is professional -- tradition is simply hiding the fact that endorsements and TV-contracts have transformed it into a monstrous industry. I lost some of that blissful innocence of my childhood when I learned that executives such as President of the NCAA Mark Emmert can make $2.4 million in 2016 while maintaining that he leads a “non-profit” organization. There is no turning back from the transformation that has created this immense wealth for Emmert and others, so the powers that have benefitted for decades need to finally acknowledge what college sports is and allow the players to get a fair cut. The players at powerhouse schools like Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, and Louisville (all schools which have been implicated in the aforementioned FBI probe into college basketball corruption) work together with their coaches to generate revenue for their schools through their performance. The coaches are certainly fairly compensated for their contribution. For example, Mike Krzyzewski makes $8.98 million a year at Duke, a school which made $31.5 million off of basketball in 2016. Isn’t it time that the Duke players share in the financial reward and receive more than just a scholarship that has debatable value? This extreme disparity in compensation is why, when it came out that Dennis Smith Jr. and other college stars likely received “improper benefits” to play for a certain school, I don’t blame the players but rather the corrupt system that has forced compensation for players to take place under the table while everyone else enjoys the spoils publicly and without restraint. The hypocrisy that this demonstrates tarnishes the image of college sports, and the NCAA and universities need to address it if they want to save the spectacular entertainment of events like March Madness and the College Football Playoff from becoming distasteful reminders of greed.

Works Cited

Berkowitz, Steve. “NCAA's Mark Emmert Got a Nearly $500,000 Raise to $2.4 Million in Compensation in 2016.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 21 June 2018, www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2018/06/21/ncaa-mark-emmert-got-nearly-500-000-raise-2-4-million/722482002/.  

Branch, Taylor. “The Shame of College Sports.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 19 Feb. 2014, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/.  

Chavez, Chris. “Who Is the Highest Paid College Basketball Coach?” SI.com, 1 Mar. 2018, www.si.com/college-basketball/2018/03/01/highest-paid-college-basketball-coaches-salaries-mike-krzyewski-john-calipari.  

Forde, Pat, and Pete Thamel. “Exclusive: Federal Documents Detail Sweeping Potential NCAA Violations Involving High-Profile Players, Schools.” Yahoo! Sports, Yahoo!, 23 Feb. 2018, sports.yahoo.com/exclusive-federal-documents-detail-sweeping-potential-ncaa-violations-involving-high-profile-players-schools-103338484.html.

Gaines, Cork. “The 27 Schools That Make at Least $100 Million in College Sports.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 25 Nov. 2017, www.businessinsider.com/schools-most-revenue-college-sports-texas-longhorns-2017-11#21-stanford-university-1120-million-7.  

Hruby, Patrick. “Amateurism Isn't Educational: Debunking the NCAA's Dumbest Lie.” Sports, VICE, 14 June 2017, sports.vice.com/en_ca/article/kzqevz/amateurism-isnt-educational-debunking-the-ncaas-dumbest-lie.

Martin, Emmie. “Here's How Much More Expensive It Is for You to Go to College than It Was for Your Parents.” CNBC, CNBC, 29 Nov. 2017, www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/how-much-college-tuition-has-increased-from-1988-to-2018.html.  

“Title IX and Sex Discrimination.” Home, US Department of Education (ED), 25 Sept. 2018, www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html.

Tracy, Marc. “N.C.A.A.: North Carolina Will Not Be Punished for Academic Scandal.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 13 Oct. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/sports/unc-north-carolina-ncaa.html.

Wiggins, Brandon. “The 25 Schools That Make the Most Money in College Basketball.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 31 Mar. 2018, www.businessinsider.com/louisville-was-college-basketballs-biggest-money-maker-in-2016-2018-2#3-syracuse-university-29322084-23.