Introduction
For many years, amateurism in collegiate athletics has been contentious. Conversely, collegiate players bring significant profits for their colleges and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). However, the idea of amateurism is being challenged, as collegiate players are frequently rewarded through scholarships and other types of financial help.
The controversy over whether or not collegiate athletes should be paid has gained pace in recent years, as illustrated by the 2015 decision of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Chicago office in favor of Northwestern football players seeking to form a union (Nocera & Strauss, 2016). Nevertheless, the NLRB headquarters in Washington, D.C., eventually invalidated the appeal verdict, claiming it had no authority over state-run schools and universities (Nocera & Strauss, 2016).
This study will look at amateurism in college athletics from the eyes of several stakeholders, including college players, university presidents, spectators, and the NCAA. The study will also look at how this complicated situation is expected to play out over the next few years. I think college athletes should be allowed to make endorsement deals and fairly compensated for their efforts in college sports.
Main Body
Amateurism in collegiate athletics has long been a contentious subject. Many argue that collegiate players should stay amateur to maintain the game’s legitimacy (Cocchiarella & Edwards, 2020). Conversely, some contend that collegiate athletes should be compensated for their time and effort (Cocchiarella & Edwards, 2020). After carefully considering all parties, the NCAA should approve limited compensation for collegiate athletes. One of the biggest arguments against paying college athletes is that they already earn scholarship money. Moreover, the NCAA views them as students and not as professionals.
Additionally, the time and effort needed by collegiate athletes should be more widely acknowledged. Cruz et al. (2019) report that the National Collegiate Athletic Association survey between 2009 and 2014 reveals that, Division I college players devote an average of 34 hours per week to their sport. This leaves collegiate athletes little time to acquire money through part-time work or different ways. The NCAA may relieve some of the financial load collegiate athletes encounter by permitting modest pay. This might be in the form of a stipend or another monetary reward, assisting collegiate athletes in meeting their basic needs while incentivizing them to achieve at a greater level.
While some claim that compensating college players would jeopardize their amateur status, limiting remuneration does not always result in the professionalization of collegiate sports. Instead, it would acknowledge collegiate athletes’ time and work and guarantee they are not exploited for their potential (Gutierrez & Fenno, 2019). As a result, the NCAA should allow college athletes to receive minimal pay.
Amateurism concerns in college athletics may be adequately understood by applying stakeholder theory to describe the interests of all parties involved. According to stakeholder theory, organizations must consider the interests of all stakeholders, including those who may be impacted by their actions or choices (Hitesh Bhasin, 2018). There are various stakeholders to consider in college athletics, including the players, the school they attend, the NCAA, and fans.
There are various reasons why college athletes should be paid a stipend. For starters, collegiate athletes are sometimes under immense pressure to achieve at a high level, both academically and athletically. This can make balancing their academic and sports responsibilities challenging, leaving them with little time to take part-time jobs to support themselves financially. Second, collegiate athletes produce enormous cash for their colleges and the NCAA through ticket sales, merchandise, and broadcast contracts. Despite this, many collegiate athletes are still waiting to get compensated for their work since NCAA laws forbid them from being paid directly.
From the standpoint of institutions and the NCAA, offering a stipend for college athletes ensures they can focus on their academics and athletics without being distracted by financial problems. This can assist in enhancing their academic performance and overall well-being, ultimately benefiting the university and the NCAA. Furthermore, fans are stakeholders in college athletics, and many would undoubtedly support paying a stipend to college players. Fans want to watch the finest athletes on the field, and offering a grant can help players focus on their sport and perform at their best.
Eventually, there are various reasons why college players should be paid, including balancing academic and athletic obligations, the income created by college athletics, and the potential advantages to institutions, the NCAA, and fans. When all stakeholders’ interests are considered, it is evident that giving a stipend to college athletes is not just a fair and ethical option but also a good commercial move.
It is impossible to forecast how the topic of amateurism in collegiate athletics will play out in the following years since it involves a diverse set of stakeholders with opposing viewpoints and interests. Many trends and occurrences, however, hint that change is on the horizon. One crucial aspect is the recent enactment of California’s Fair Pay to Play Act, which permits collegiate players to be compensated for using their name, image, and likeness (Uninterrupted, 2019). This measure, which takes effect in 2023, is expected to unleash a wave of similar legislation in other states, putting pressure on the NCAA to reexamine its amateurism regulations.
However, it remains to be seen if the organization will eventually agree to enable players to be compensated. Legal challenges to the NCAA’s amateurism regulations are another prospective path for reform. Many cases have been launched against the NCAA in recent years, arguing that its limitations on player remuneration violate antitrust laws. While some claims have been rejected, others have resulted in settlements or favorable verdicts for the plaintiffs, such as a Supreme Court decision in 2022 that enabled institutions to pay education-related perks to athletes (Hovenkamp, 2021).
At the same time, vital interests are involved in sustaining the status quo. College presidents and athletic directors may be hesitant to give up the cash earned by athletics. Any alteration to the amateurism regulations may be viewed as hurting the spirit of collegiate athletics by fans and alumni. Ultimately, the question of amateurism in college athletics will remain heated and complicated in the coming years. Nevertheless, the impetus for change is building, and it may only be a matter of time before athletes receive some restricted recompense.
Conclusion
To summarize, amateurism in college athletics is complex and contentious, affecting various stakeholders, including college players, institution presidents, spectators, and the NCAA. While the NCAA has maintained a strong amateurism policy for many years, there is rising support for collegiate athletes receiving some money. This remuneration might include allowing athletes to benefit from their name, image, and likeness and earning a stipend to cover living expenses.
California’s recent Fair Pay to Play Act approval shows that change is coming, and other states are likely to follow. Finally, or risk losing its importance in college athletics, the NCAA must adjust to these developments. All stakeholders must work together to create a fair solution for everyone concerned. College players must be rewarded with the respect and compensation they deserve for their hard work and devotion to their sport.
References
Blanco, D. V., & Bairner, A. (2018). College basketball governance in the Philippines: Actors, stakeholders, issues, and challenges. Sport in Society, 22(3), 361–383. Web.
Cocchiarella, D., & Edwards, J. R. (2020). Challenging the amateur rule in the NCAA: A case study of the failed attempt at institutional disruption by Northwestern University football players. Managing Sport and Leisure, 27(5), 1–14. Web.
Cruz, C. A., Kerbel, Y., Smith, C. M., Prodromo, J., Trojan, J. D., & Mulcahey, M. K. (2019). A Sport-specific analysis of the epidemiology of hip injuries in National Collegiate Athletic Association Athletes from 2009 to 2014. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, 35(9), 2724–2732. Web.
Gutierrez, M., & Fenno, N. (2019). Newsom signs bill to allow college athletes to take endorsement deals. Los Angeles Times. Web.
Hitesh Bhasin. (2018). Stakeholder theory – Six principles of stakeholder theory. Marketing91. Web.
Hovenkamp, H. (2021). A Miser’s rule of reason: Student athlete compensation and the Alston Antitrust Case. SSRN Electronic Journal. Web.
Krattenmaker, T. (2019). March madness revenue is insane. So is soaring student debt. Time for March sanity?USA TODAY. Web.
Nocera, J., & Strauss, B. (2016). How Northwestern football union nearly came to be. Sports Illustrated. Web.
Uninterrupted. (2019). Gavin Newsom signs California’s “Fair Pay to Play Act” with LeBron James & Mav Carter | THE SHOP. In YouTube. Web.