Both ratings and revenue are at peaks never seen before at this level. (A) So can we really call these athletes amateurs if they generate this much money? As the popularity, and revenue continues to grow in college sports, the debate will be taken to new heights about whether or not college athletes are being exploited, and if they should be compensated monetarily. (M) I conducted an interview with current UMD Athletic Director Josh Berlo to gain an expert perspective on this topic.
In this speech, I will explore both sides of this pressing issue and will cover topics such as, revenue, university budgets, and just how we might go about paying these athletes, or maybe, not paying them. Transition: First, let’s explore the revenue aspect. II. According to NCAA. com, the NCAA generated $871. 6 million in revenue in 2012. A. Where does this money come from? 1. The NCAA generates 81% of its revenue from TV and marketing rights fees. a. Most of this comes from a $10. 1 billion contract made with CBS for rights to broadcast the Division I Men’s Basketball tournament. 2.
The NCAA generates 11% of its revenue from various championship series they put on at the end of each sports’ regular season 3. The NCAA also generates money by selling team apparel, including jerseys with specific athlete’s names on them. b. Enter Johnny Manziel. Dubbed, Johnny Football, Manziel is one of many athletes who has been allegedly “exploited” by the NCAA. i. The NCAA sold jerseys with Manziel’s name on the back which technically violates their belief of amateurism. c. Professional athletes get a stipend of the money made off their jerseys, so why didn’t Manziel and other athletes get paid for this?
This type of hypocrisy by the NCAA has given them a poor reputation and has provided more support for paying athletes. B. So where does this $871. 6 million go? 1. 60% of the NCAA revenue is directly distributed to Division I conferences who then distribute it to their respective universities. 2. The NCAA also uses this revenue to fund 89 national championships C. Bottom line, the athletes provide the entertainment which allows the NCAA to hold these enormous contracts. 3. Without the athletes there would be no NCAA, yet, the athletes get no compensation for this. 4.
It’s like putting in a 40 hour week, and then not geting a paycheck. Transition: If the NCAA doesn’t want to pay the athletes, why don’t the universities? Next let’s take a look at university budgets. III. Can colleges afford to pay these athletes, and if so, who and how do they decide to pay? A. There are approximately 170,000 Division I student athletes, but not all of them play revenue sports. (Football, Basketball, Baseball). 1. So how does the NCAA decide who gets paid between Johnny Football, and Johnny Water Polo? 2. From a business standpoint, it makes sense to only pay players who play revenue sports right?
Paying revenue athletes would create an inequality among revenue and nonrevenue athletes and that would also ensue a long line of Title IX and gender inequality lawsuits. B. Some argue that athletes are already being paid. How is that possible? 3. It’s estimated the average athletic scholarship is worth $121,000, and even though the athletes never see any of this money, they have very few financial burdens to pay off. b. Throw in all of the gear associated with being a Division I college athlete and you’re looking at a hefty amount of cash being invested in each athlete.
Each athlete equally while still staying above the budget? You can’t. 1. Trying to pay a football team alone could plunge a university underneath their budget with an average of nearly 100 players per team. 2. On top of that, there are 28 more sports with athletes waiting to have their pockets filled with cash. 3. And finally, it takes away funding for other important academic areas of the college.
Transition: The budget just simply isn’t there for a university of any size to reasonably pay each and every athlete so finally I will explain some different ways an NCAA athlete could possibly make some money. IV. There are plenty of ways an athlete could make money, but it would require some self marketing and a little help from the NCAA. A. A player could seek out additional sponsorships and advertising deals like a professional athlete. 1. The athlete isn’t technically making money off their playing ability they’re making the money from the name on the back of their jersey. B.
Opposers of this idea would say that equality plays a factor here as well. 2. Not every athlete is as marketable as the next and would defeat the purpose the NCAA is attempting to impose by making all athletes equal in every aspect except ability. C. Another attempt would be to have the NCAA pay athletes on teams that qualify for postseason tournaments and championships. 1. In an interview with former Notre Dame assistant athletic director and current UMD athletic director, Josh Berlo, He claims he supports the idea of using postseason appearances as an incentive for college athletes
A. “I understand some of these guys come from rough backgrounds and may not have the spending cash that other athletes do. Offering cash incentives for making the postseason forces athletes to stay motivated academically so they can stay eligible. It also motivates them to get better so they can reach the postseason. ” 2. The NCAA’s firm stance at this point is they refuse to use money as an incentive or a form of compensation for excelling in athletics. Conclusion: This debate has never been hotter but the NCAA remains unmoved in their stance on paying college athletes.
This is a difficult situation that can’t end up pleasing everyone. The NCAA could decide to cave and make some decisions about how athletes could be paid or make money, but they would have to do it without punishing the budgets of colleges. On the other hand they could just leave things the way they are and see if the noise dies down, or if the world of college athletics crumbles to pieces. One of these theories will becomes reality. It’s just a matter of how and when.