I'm going to start out this post with a disclaimer: this is a topic on which not everyone may agree with me. That's fine; differing opinions are what make the world go round (note: I accidentally typed "wrong" instead of "round" the first time around--a Freudian slip at it's finest). I'm also going to acknowledge that I can only speak for myself and my experiences as a college athlete when I make statements. So keep that all in mind when you read on.
One of the most popular topics in the world of sports media right now is the issue of college athletics, NCAA compliance, and the ideal of amateurism. As more and more programs, athletes, and coaches have come under the scrutiny of the NCAA (as well as the University they represent and the conference in which they compete), many questions have been raised wondering if the NCAA's rules on an athlete's amateur status are flawed and outdated. The question has been raised: should student-athletes be paid for their contributions?
The short answer, in my opinion, is no. The long answer, however, is much more complex than that and will be explained below.
One of the defenses brought forth in the name of Terrelle Pryor and the other Ohio State football players who sold their championship memorabilia to a tattoo parlor in Columbus was that they were doing so to help "feed their families" and "send money back home." And sure, if that was the whole and entirely honest story (which I highly suspect it is not), I might sympathize. Yet as I watch various talking heads on ESPN talk about how these players aren't allowed to get jobs and have no way to earn any money as a student-athlete, there is one thing I always want to scream out. We do, in a way, get extra money. Money which we could perceivably save and send back home if we so desired.
As an athlete on full scholarship for the first time this year, I have been able to observe all of the perks granted to somebody on a full athletic scholarship. A full athletic scholarship at the University of Michigan covers what is known as "cost of attendance," a number that the University re-estimates annually to discover just how much the average in-state or out-of-state student spends during their 9 months as a full-time student. Along with tuition, cost of attendance covers room and board (board meaning food, utility expenses, etc), books & supplies, and even personal/miscellaneous expenses. For an in-state upperclassman at Michigan (like myself), cost of attendance for a year is estimated to be upwards of $25,000. My tuition is paid for, and my books are covered, and everything else (room, board, miscellaneous) is covered by a check I receive every month which is ideally meant to pay for my rent, food, utilities, and miscellaneous expenses. Furthermore, the room & board money is based on what it costs to live in the dorms, which is traditionally more costly than what it costs to live off-campus.
Logically, then, if I can find somewhere to live which costs less than the dorms, and if I budget my grocery bill in a reasonable manner, that leaves more of my rent check to go towards that other category: miscellaneous expenses. And here is where I find issue with the explanation that Pryor & co. sold their stuff because they had no disposable income which could have gone towards helping their families, or themselves, or whatever their real motivation was for pawning their Big Ten Championship rings (as somebody who has dreamt about winning a Big Ten ring for four years, I can say that this is honestly one of the more disgusting things I've ever encountered). Perhaps, instead of attempting to take the easy way out by selling their jewelry, Pryor & co. simply could have better managed the scholarship money they received (and I am not sure if OSU's scholarship machinations are exactly the same as U-M's, I'm only making an assumption that it is at least somewhat similar and they too get money for rent, food and personal expenses). Student-athletes on a full scholarship shouldn't be broke because the university specifically budgets into their scholarship money for their own disposable income. Whether the student athlete considers that enough or not, it is still deceiving to make it seem as though Terrelle Pryor and his fellow athletes HAD to sell that stuff to put money in their pockets.
In addition to all of this, I think the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars which go into any four-year scholarship at any university is a HUGE privilege. And, once an athletic career is over, the college degree (hopefully) earned there will go a long way into helping to ensure a financially secure future.
Still, I do believe that many of the NCAA's rules for amateurism are outdated and--brace yourself for this loaded word--unfair. College athletics have become a HUGE money-making industry; like professional sports they make money off of advertising, selling TV contracts, and vending merchandise. College athletics even have a leg-up on professional athletics in that they also have another huge source of revenue: boosters. Big-gift donors are very specific to college athletics thanks to the special bond many alumni feel with their undergraduate alma maters (this is usually less so with post-graduates). While professional sports do have their corporate friends and high-rollers in the season ticket holder group, boosters are decidedly collegiate-specific and they act almost like a collective, mostly-silent owner (with the Athletic Director functioning as a Commissioner) in that they help to fund things like stadium renovations, new practice centers, and multi-million dollar coaching contracts. In many ways, then, college and professional athletics are the same.
However, there is one huge difference, and that lies in the fact that while professional athletes are able to use their talents and popularity to their own advantage, college athletes are essentially marketed by the University and the sports media though gaining nothing of it for themselves. Is it fair that during Charles Woodson's career, the University and Nike could sell the #2 jersey (though not with his name on it) to tremendous profits--but he saw not one cent? Why, exactly, should it be a big deal if Carson Palmer's car salesman uncle had wanted to put him on a few billboards in the LA-area back in his USC days--and given him a couple hundred bucks in return? Why not let a big-time college basketball player go overseas and make a little cash in the off-season? And what would happen if the rules did change--would college athletics as we know them be any different? My guess to the last question is probably not.
College athletics is a multi-million dollar industry in today's world, and though I do not believe that athletes should be directly paid by their respective institutions (more so than they already are), I do believe that they should be entitled to a piece of the pie. This too should help to curb much of the shady activity which goes down in college athletics. Maybe if Terrelle Pryor had been allowed to sign an endorsement deal with Nike, he wouldn't have sold his Big Ten Championship ring.
But he does go to Ohio State, so who knows...
Just one in a myriad of opinions out there right now on the subject.
Best,
Lauren
No comments:
Post a Comment