×
×
homepage logo
SUBSCRIBE

College athletes: To pay or not to pay

By Staff | Jul 26, 2013

Val: There seems to be a lot of chatter in the media these days about whether it is time to start paying college athletes more than the grants-in-aid they currently receive. Like it or not, college athletics is a multi-billion-dollar business. In 2010, the NCAA signed a 14-year, $11 billion deal with CBS and Turner Sports to broadcast the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament. There are many other deals that generate millions of dollars for the NCAA, conferences and the schools.

So the question is, should the athletes be entitled to some of that money?

It is a rather complicated question because of a number of issues. First, many people assume intercollegiate athletic programs are awash in cash, when that simply isn’t the case. Only a handful of universities actually make money on athletics. Most schools subsidize their athletic programs. So if they are required to pay athletes more than the scholarships they currently are awarding the players, the athletic programs will simply go further into debt. Take UVU, for instance. Its budget is one of the smallest in the entire NCAA Division I. Adding a requirement to pay athletes more than they receive would be a huge financial burden on the athletic program and the university.

There are those who argue that paying athletes ought to be optional, depending on the school’s availability to pay. The flaw in that suggestion is that it would create a very uneven playing field and would give a huge unfair advantage to the schools that can pay.

Imagine you are a recruit and Coach A comes in and says, “If you come to our school, we will give you room, board and tuition.” Coach B then shows up and says, “We will give you everything Coach A is giving you, plus a $1,000 per month stipend.”

With whom will you sign?

At 95 percent of universities, the men’s football and basketball programs generate the revenue that subsidizes all the other sports programs. When people talk about paying athletes, most of them are referring to athletes in those two sports. Title IX, however, requires that male and female athletes be treated equally. So if a university pays a football player who is helping to generate millions of dollars, it is likely the courts would rule they also must pay a women’s tennis player, who is not generating any revenue for the university. There again, the idea of paying football and basketball players may have some merit; however, if a university is forced to give all the athletes a stipend, it becomes infinitely more expensive and impractical.

Finally, I am one who believes that a full grant-in-aid to play a college sport is a pretty good “payment.” College football and basketball players have a great gig. They don’t need to take out school loans and work summer jobs just so they can afford to go to school the next year.

That said, I believe many athletic programs — especially at the bigger schools — spend way too much money on athletics. I also believe coaches’ salaries are out of control. When a college coach makes $4 million a year, I can understand how the athletes feel they are being exploited.

Donna: If you are like me and don’t read ESPN articles or track college football’s latest controversy than you might not have heard about the big debate going on right now over compensation for student athletes. Luckily Google Search and I are well acquainted.

Val has stated a lot of the intricacies of what paying college football and basketball players entails. First there are laws protecting all athletes that require equal treatment of athletes by the school. Second everyone readily agrees that asking colleges to pay athletes from their budgets would be disastrous for most of these programs. These arguments are a good reason to continue with the current compensation from schools for their athletes.

However, the lawsuit that is gaining so much attention this week is not based on the idea of colleges paying athletes. It is a suit, first filed in 2008 by Ed O’Bannon against the NCAA and EA Games, about the use of “likenesses” of players to sell video games and TV rights. After the $11 billion deal between CBS and the NCAA the question of why the people shown on the screen who are actually playing the game are not being compensated for the use of their images. Why can’t a college football or basketball player have paid speaking arrangements or receive a royalty on a video game featuring his image?

Before I even started my research, my suggestion was to allow those college students who gain celebrity status to benefit by getting a portion of revenues. I’m not talking about revenue that currently goes to the school for tournament play or any other payments. I am referring to profits gained directly by the NCAA and video game companies from the use of an athlete’s image. Officially the NCAA will not allow actual images of college sports stars to be used in video games. The faces in the video games are non-descript although the attributes of height, weight and jersey number are accurate. In my opinion it is a fine line description of “likeness” if you put everything but the person’s actual face on a screen and then say it is not their “likeness.” The true test is whether or not the audience recognizes the person and therefore purchases the game for that reason.

Six current college stars have joined the lawsuit by Ed O’Bannon, former UCLA basketball player, that argues if game companies and media outlets are going to make billions upon billions of dollars from a venture using “likenesses” of college sports stars, then those athletes deserve a cut of the pie. I agree.

It isn’t up to the colleges to pay stipends or compensate a player beyond agreed upon benefits, but when a for-profit business capitalizes on images or attributes of a real person to sell their product than he or she should share in the success and be fairly compensated. It isn’t going to be equal for all student athletes. Not every athlete will be selected or “hired” as an avatar of a sports video game. However, opening the field for athletes to contract with game companies and have their images used with fair compensation to the athlete might open possibilities beyond the current market. If for instance a Heisman Trophy winning college athlete were able to sign a contract with a game company to use his image in a game and then endorse the product, imagine the benefits for the game company and the student. Right now the NCAA’s regulations do not allow any such opportunity for athletes while they are raking in billion dollar deals using the faces of those same students.

Val Hale is the president and CEO of the Utah Valley Chamber of Commerce. Donna Milakovic is executive vice president of the Utah Valley Chamber of Commerce.

Newsletter

Join thousands already receiving our daily newsletter.

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)