Contradiction In College Football

“College Athletes for Hire, The Evolution and Legacy of the NCAA’s Amateur Myth” written by Allen L. Sack and Ellen J. Staurowsky. In their book, the authors enlighten the reader on such issues as athletic scholarships, professionalism in college sports, and favoritism for athletes as well as many more important legal, and ethical issues that we as a country need to address. In this paper I will not do a standard book report by simply regurgitating the information I read in their book.

In his article “The Shame of College Sports,” Taylor Branch (2011) describes how universities are focused on advancing and receiving money from major athletics and having star athletes, but how the universities are not caring for the “student athlete.” The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has made college sports into an unmerited business. However, as years progress more athletes are getting smart and are taking the NCAA to court. The more students that challenges the rules by the NCAA and take them to court, the secrets and undermining values of the NCAA come out and the closer the NCAA comes to an end.

In the essay “The Shame of College Sports,” Taylor Branch examines the flaws of the National Collegiate Athletic Association in college sports regarding “amateurism” (Branch 227) and the “student-athlete” (227). In doing so, Branch discusses the history of college sports and the National Collegiate Athletic Association while emphasizing certain regulations such as allowing multinational organizations to advertise their brand on athletic gear but athletes cannot use any of their memorabilia to get cash or a free tattoo at a tattoo parlor (227). Branch also argues that athletes are being manipulated for their skills and fame from the National Collegiate Athletic Association and universities and further irritates that they make money off the “unpaid

Since the inception of high profile intercollegiate athletics, there has been a debate regarding the place of athletics within the structure of higher education. Within the last few decades, this debate has intensified as intercollegiate athletics has transformed into a multi-billion dollar industry that shifted the way athletic departments operate. College athletic departments have been able to generate millions of dollars in revenue through corporate partnerships, television contracts, alumni and donor support, and ticket sales (Toma, 2003). Specifically, this athletic revenue is primarily generated by football and basketball programs. College athletics has entered the “show business phase as football and basketball have evolved into commercial entertainment products (Duderstadt, p.69).” As the commercialization of collegiate athletics continue grow, the concept of student-athlete amateurism has become increasingly strained as there has been a push for providing student-athletes, specifically in football and basketball, additional compensation for their play.

In today’s society, there are many issues, dilemmas, and scandals that we have to face. After reading Kenneth Jost’s article about college football there is, respectively, many issues in this field. I firmly agree that the Committee of the Coalition of Intercollegiate Athletics, which is an organization that represent roughly half the FBS schools, should search for ways to force college athletes to be admitted into the school before being provided with scholarships to play. Even though everyone loves watching college athletics, the purpose of going to school isn’t to be entertained, it’s an opportunity to better your education. Although many colleges feel like this will decrease their schools win efficiency there are examples that diminish

College sports bring in a massive amount of revenue. Because of this, the argument of athletes deserving some of the income arrises. Some believe that “everyone associated with [college football] is getting rich except the people whose labor creates the value” (Lewis). Many say that the NCAA is there to “ensure that the universities it polices keep all the money for themselves” (Lewis). They think that it is unfair for athletes to put so much into the game and receive nothing out of it. Their argument fails to see the expenses the athletes and sports generate. Very few programs, after all expenses are paid, actually make a profit (NCAA). While it is understandable that people may believe the organizations are robbing their athletes of money,

College athletic programs are among the most popular sporting events in America. With this rise in popularity, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its colleges have also seen a rise in revenue in recent years. In 2014, the NCAA made over 900 million dollars in revenue. Some collegiate coaches, such as Kentucky’s John Calipari, have yearly salaries in the millions, not counting incentives and endorsement deals. While, clearly, money is being made, NCAA regulations ban collegiate athletes from being paid. Many question this rule and argue that athletes at the college level earn and deserve pay for play. The debate to pay or not to pay college athletes rages on despite the latest court ruling supporting NCAA policies. Because colleges and universities earn such a profit from sporting events, many fans feel it is only fair to distribute some of the wealth to the players. Supporters of paying student athletes feel that these young men and women should be fairly compensated for the time demanded of the athletes and the stress put on the athletes, physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially. Those in favor of paying college athletes contend that athletic and academic work ethic at both high school and collegiate levels will improve, as well as, fiscal responsibility in these young adults. The NCAA argues that paying athletes would negatively affect their

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, or so they say. In this case the phrase holds true, as it would be foolish to change a wildly successful college athletics system. Currently, athletes are able to earn their degree for free, while playing the sport they love, in a harmonious reltionship between amatuer athlete and college sports. Nonetheless, critics call for colleges to pay athletes a portion of the profits generated off of their services even though college athletes are already paid in the form of scholarships, free housing and other benefits. Furthermore, changes, such as sharing profits with student athletes could ruin a system that sucessfully supplies us with the ameteur sports that we love, while providing athletes with a free college education.

The magnitude of the controversy to pay college athletes has intensified over the past few years. It might be due to the prevailing economic atmosphere causing everyone, including aspiring athletes, to look for new ways to make money. It might also be due to many higher educational facilities giving the public access to their annual budget, causing outsiders to focus on the profit of specific athletic programs. However, it might also be due to the coaches’ outrageous salaries and the money that universities make from bowl games and basketball tournaments. Regardless, this has intensified the fact that athletes see none of these profits and this is what implores the simple question of “where is my portion?”

Throughout the existence of the NCAA and the realm of intercollegiate competition, one of the largest topics of debate has been the idea to compensate athletes based on athletic performance above any scholarships awarded. Mark Emmert, president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, has previously said “We can never move to a place where we are paying players to play sports for us” (Garcia, 2010, para.9). This statement by Emmert has again sparked several conversations concerning the specifics of what defines amateurism and the exploitation of our young student athletes. The awarding of a salary to athletes is both heavily supported and strongly opposed by players, spectators, coaches, and collegiate

What college teams are not anymore, are sports teams that represents their schools. As stated by Dan Wetzel “they are profit points that command their own cable television networks, massive stadiums, huge media rights, national tournaments and billions and billions in revenue” (Wetzel, 2014). As identified previously, both basketball and football are referred to when discussing college sports that generate the large revenue. The transformation of what college sports has become cannot be more evident, especially during March Madness for the NCAA. With these factors in mind, Division I football and men’s basketball players do not merely play a sport of leisure. According to Edelman, “rather, they are core members of their university’s marketing team, as well as the labor force behind a lucrative

Every year the financial cost required for college sports to occur is increasing. From gigantic stadiums being built to hold 80,000 plus spectators, to multi million-dollar TV deals, and the sales of thousands of jerseys leaving campus stores. The revenue generated from college sports is a billon dollar industry, one that rewards coaches, staff members, and universities with ostentatious contracts, and gratuitous bonuses. Case and point, “Nick Saban is paid $5 million dollars more than Alabama 's chancellor” (Has College Football Become A Campus Commodity?). Amidst the profiteering, the NCAA is completely capitalizing on their student athletes’ likeness and achievements. The NCAA standard states college athletes should not receive payment since they are merely amateurs representing their schools. I contest this standard, arguing that athletes must be paid a salary in order to redeem the legitimacy of the NCAA.

The ugly truth behind the money machine that is college sports is that, every year, college athletes are deceived by the institutions the compete for into making them millions of dollars, with relatively little in return. Athletes are said to be given a chance to attend college and to attain a free college degree. However, research has shown that this is not completely true for two reasons. For one, the student athlete will spend most of their time in preparation for competition. Secondly, what education the student athlete does receive hardly serves them outside of maintaining eligibility just so

There has been amplified debate on the treatment, education, training of the college athlete. To avoid exploitation of athletes, “The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), formed in 1905, set bylaws requiring college student-athletes to be amateurs in order to be eligible for intercollegiate athletics competition” (Schneider n.p.). Intercollegiate athletics have dramatically changed over the last several decades. Currently, intercollegiate athletics generate tremendous amounts of revenue, remarkably in football and basketball. College sports in America is a

The only significant money-makers are men’s basketball and men’s football the rest either don’t make any money, others make a little, or end up losing money (Hartnett, 2013). Least popular sports like soccer, tennis, or volleyball don’t earn the university money, the revenue sports have to make up for the lost difference (Zimbalist, 2001). While college football may appear to generate giant revenues, some of this money must be allocated to keep these non-revenue sports afloat. Other arguments suggest that not all college sports make enough money but evidentially, universities spend a significant amount of their revenue on nonessentials including construction of sports facilities. This has been deemed as an “arms race” where universities are spending significant amounts of money on infrastructure (Prewett, 2014). The University of Cincinnati, for example, is going to spend more than $80 million expanding its football stadium by 2015 (Peale, 2013).