Anytime a major story breaks, you can count on the staff at The Student Section to weigh in with some hard-hitting analysis. In this edition, TSS associate editors Bart Doan and Terry Johnson are joined by staff writer Joe Nardone to discuss the concept of pay-for-play.
*
Q. The 9th District Court of Appeals stated that “The Rule of Reason requires that the NCAA permit its schools to provide up to the cost of attendance to their student athletes. It does not require more”, essentially striking down the idea of pay-for-play. While the legal process is far from over, what’s your opinion on pay-for-play?
Joe Nardone
On Twitter @JosephNardone
It is a complicated topic, obviously. However, after reading the entire release by the court, I still find it funny how the NCAA gets the benefit of the doubt because of its own fictional idea of amateurism.
The 9th District Court of Appeals stated that the NCAA should adhere to The Rule of Reason, which is definitely a cornerstone of antitrust laws, yet the NCAA — and, as importantly, the universities who benefit from free labor — and because of amateurism, the universities are only responsible for paying “up to the cost of attendance.”
So, basically, because of “amateurism,” the NCAA gets away without having to do a form of pay for play.
In my opinion, no matter which side of the fence you are on, our opinions on amateurism will form the rest of our opinions on the topic at hand. Some feel amateurism is important, noble, and profoundly positive. Through this way of seeing, paying players would ruin the great thing that is amateurism.
As for folks such as myself, however, the idea of amateurism is merely a silly concept put forth by people who don’t want to pay others for their work. I’m not saying amateurism never had a good purpose in college athletics — in previous eras, it had a place in the industry. However, considering that the two major college sports represent a multi-million-dollar annual business, it is silly we are treating the “student-athletes” the same way financially, simply because of the tradition known as amateurism.
Most counter-arguments deal with “how would we pay the non-money schools,” and my answer has always been the same: Whenever we decide that amateurism is simply a tool used by those with power and money to keep those without it from obtaining it, we enter a capitalist venture — and like the rest of the open market (otherwise known as ‘every walk of life except college sports’), those with earning power are the ones who deserve it. So I won’t shed tears for people who excel in areas no one cares about. The moment we agree — if ever — that they should be paid to play, then it is a profession, and as with all other professions, supply and demand will determine market value.
The topic of pay for play isn’t going away because a court set forth a ruling. It does, though, help us continue to have a conversation about the absurdity of it all. Unlike previous “debates” on the topic, where everyone immediately starts to take sides and begin name calling, let’s hope this time around it stays a bit more civil.
#Merica
Bart Doan
On Twitter @TheCoachBart
My opinion on “pay for play?” It’s already going on, and we’re having the wrong argument. Mine is an opinion that will always be evolving on this topic, because the relative expense and worth of things change dramatically over time.
The reality is, though, that student athletes are paid to play. It’s called a scholarship. No, I’m not going all Doug Gottlieb and ending it there. The issues go far beyond the issue of money for student athletes or no money for student athletes. The real discussion and change probably lies out of the hands of the NCAA, but can certainly be forwarded if we acknowledge some truths the academics out there won’t like. Because therein lies the real problem.
According to the Huffington Post (I know, I know, but they didn’t do the actual research, don’t worry), in 2013, 38 percent of college graduates were working in jobs that did not require a high school diploma. Harrowing, right?
According to the Center for College Affordability and Productivity (CCAP), 48 percent were working jobs that only required a high school diploma.
Also, according to the CCAP (shut your eyes, academia), there are currently 41.7 million current college graduates versus 28.6 jobs listed that hold the requirement of having a college degree, a gap of 13.1 million.
By 2020, the CCAP estimates that an additional 19 million individuals with college degrees will be entering the workforce to only 12 million additional jobs holding that educational requirement, and that nationally, of the top 30 highest growing careers, only five hold an educational attainment requirement of an Associate’s Degree or more.
Just released, a new Gallup-Purdue poll shows that only 50 percent of those who have attained a bachelor’s degree say it was worth it, and that number drops to 38 percent when just isolating graduates from 2006 through 2015.
The question isn’t pay for play … it’s that, “are they getting paid anything worth something, and if they were, would we be having these questions.”
You see, there’s actual cost, and actual value. Take this (all too common) scenario into account. There is an unemployed person without transportation. He/she finds a car that costs about $5,000. Absent that vehicle, this person will stay unemployed. With that vehicle, this person can go obtain a job, and just for the sake of making it an easy number, let’s just say it pays $30,000.
The cost of the car is $5,000, but the value of the car is significantly above that, probably something along the formula of Value = Income – (Cost + Maintenance) and then probably multiplied by some sort of ethereal “life satisfaction” number.
To wit, the “cost” or “pay” the student athlete (or really, any student) is being levied is not nearly what the value of that input is. People can say all they want about “work 10 times harder than the guy next to you” but at some point, you’re going to run into the other “work 10 times harder than the guy next to you’s” in the job obtaining process and it doesn’t matter how good or hard working you are, if there are 10 of you and 5 job openings, those are the breaks. Five are going to keep looking.
So, while this goes far out and away from the actual topic you’re probably expecting, it all goes back to what this issue would even be if the value of what the student athlete was getting (college education paid for) was consummate with what they expected or needed to comfortably survive in the future.
There are plenty of extras that college athletes get that people never really account for in these arguments. You never hear anyone mention the meal stipends or ancillary benefits of not actually having to ever buy clothes and what not because you get so much free stuff (expensive stuff, too, if you play at the highest levels).
The real problem here goes far beyond pay for play. That’s just an easy target for the media to team up with the alleged poor, indentured servant athlete wearing $300 headphones off a chartered bus to games. You rarely hear many college athletes step up and wade into these arguments. It’s usually after guys (or girls, though I cannot think of one) has passed on from sports and likely, other factors are being weighed in.
Which is exactly where that 48 percent hoeing row exist that have a college degree doing nothing but taking up space on a wall while they work a job with a high school diploma as the main educational requirement.
The “college education is priceless” line was once very, very true. That is not a truth anymore. It’s time we stop worrying about dollars and cents and worry about paying student athletes … and all students … our honesty, and our best efforts at success after school when they really need it. There’s no cost or agenda on that.
Terry Johnson
On Twitter @SectionTPJ
Like Bart, I agree that college athletes are getting paid. While some will say that players need to be paid more than they are, the fact remains that every scholarship athlete gets a free education. Although the value of a degree isn’t necessarily what it used to be, it’s worth noting that the average student leaves school with close to $30,000 in loans.
That last sentence is what gets lost in this debate. Even if you agree that student-athletes are professionals – and for the record, I don’t – it’s tough to make the argument that players aren’t benefiting from this arrangement. They might no receive a salary from playing in college, but they do leave school without owing anyone a dime.
In other words: every student-athlete starts out approximately $30,000 ahead of the average student.
It’s hard to argue with those results.
Please note that I am not defending the NCAA here. Sure, I – like a large majority of others – oppose the idea of players receiving a salary. However, I do support the National College Players Association, whose mission statement details a number of reforms that would help improve the quality of life of student-athletes both on and off the field. These changes wouldn’t cost the NCAA or the schools very much money at all, and would help take care of the players long after they leave campus.
That – and not an arbitrary dollar figure – is what we should be discussing.
