Paying college athletes sounds fair, doesn’t it? They seem to work harder than most students in college. They put the most energy into their talent, and they bring in millions of dollars to their school and the NCAA.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association has proposed a bill that will allow collegiate athletes to benefit off of their name, image, and likeness. They are hoping to have an idea on the table by April, with each division to begin to come up with rules but have them in no later by January 2021.
Some states seem to already be ahead of the game. In September 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 206, coined the “Fair Pay to Play Act.” The three major points it tackles is:
1. California’s universities and colleges cannot punish student-athletes who seek compensation for their name, image, and likeness
2. A California student-athlete’s scholarship cannot be changed, no matter how much money he/she is benefitting from name, image, and likeness
3. The NCAA cannot ban California universities and colleges from competing in NCAA events due to their student-athletes profiting from their name, image and likeness
The pros are pretty obvious: student-athletes will get compensated for the extremely hard work they put in. This compensation, in the past, has gone to the NCAA and universities around the United States. The coaches get paid huge dollars, as well as the TV producers and athletic staff.
Because all those other people, besides the student-athlete, have legitimate jobs.
On a sweet pro, especially on the local front, student-athletes can get money from a local grocery store wanting to use their likeness in an ad. Especially if they are a hometown hero. Student-athletes could also receive money to be running training camps or giving lessons to their neighbor.
These small benefits are not enough pros to outweigh the tremendous cons and matters to consider.
After the passage of SB 206, the Pac-12 issued a statement:
“The Pac-12 is disappointed in the passage of SB 206 and believes it will have very significant negative consequences for our student-athletes and broader universities in California. This legislation will lead to the professionalization of college sports and many unintended consequences related to this professionalism, imposes a state law that conflicts with national rules, will blur the lines for how California universities recruit student-athletes and compete nationally, and will likely reduce resources and opportunities for student-athletes in Olympic sports and have a negative disparate impact on female student-athletes.
Our universities have led important student-athlete reform over the past years, but firmly believe all reforms must treat our student-athletes as students pursuing an education, and not as professional athletes. We will work with our universities to determine next steps and ensure continuing support for our student-athletes.”
The Pac-12 lies out a few of the major implications of this bill:
Professionalization of college sports
NCAA leans heavily on their “amateurism model,” and compensating players for their likeness would eventually put this away. Article 2, section 9 of the NCAA handbook defines the principle of amateurism:
“Student-athletes shall be amateurs in an intercollegiate sport, and their participation should be motivated primarily by education and by the physical, mental, and social benefits to be derived. Student participation in intercollegiate athletics is an avocation, and student-athletes should be protected from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises.”
If the NCAA allows players to be compensated, that throws out the principle of amateurism. A player becomes professional as soon as he or she is compensated for his or her success. The student-athletes’ success comes from their success on the field, court, etc. Small numbers probably mean not much money.
Imposes a state law that conflicts with national rules
This issue must be mandated by the NCAA, not the states. Athletes who are good enough will go compete in states that allow compensation, and their universities will benefit from a huge amount of their talent. The other states that do not comply, or enact a law later will suffer from a loss of talent. Another issue is the conference rules. Rules cannot differ from conference to conference. How much money is too much? Where does it stop? There will most likely be more money coming to athletes in the SEC than the Pac-12 or the Big Sky (for example). How does the NCAA keep a cap on this? If there is a cap, under the table recruiting will just have it spill over.
Will blur the lines for recruiting
One of the pushes for player likeness is that it would make illegal recruiting legal and fix all under the table money and player benefit problems overnight. When has this tactic ever fixed anything? Also, this is a media push. The NCAA explicitly stated that this was an issue to consider – not one they are trying to push. Receiving money from boosters is illegal and should stay that way. Under this bill, this would not be all of a sudden legal.
Negative impact on female student-athletes
Shoe deals, major company ads, and jerseys will go to a majority of male student-athletes in football, basketball, and baseball (in that order). Most schools have a couple male student-athletes off of any of the big three sports’ rosters that can make money off their likeness. More than a few male student-athletes on the middle talent level could benefit from their likeness. As female student-athletes go, one would have to be a total superstar at their sport to be considered for major ad campaigns. Not a lot of female jerseys would be sold, and unless she is playing at a major power school, not many looks would be given. On the flip side, the number of jerseys, shoe deals, ad campaigns, etc., for male student-athletes would be insane. Granted, this money would not be flowing from the universities. But these problems would fall underneath the Title IX umbrella as female student-athletes will get unequal pay and opportunity.
These are just some implications and effects that would be major issues, should the NCAA approve student-athletes compensating from their name, image, or likeness. The time is coming, and the NCAA will most likely cede to the calls of critics. They have many issues they will have to tackle first. Or are these issues too much to tackle? If amateurism dies, will the NCAA continue to be the dominating entity in collegiate athletics?
Breana Norton 