Research Blog #4: Research Proposal

Working Title: College Athletics and Compensation

Topic

        I look to analyze the ongoing debate of whether or not Division I college athletes deserve monetary compensation for their contributions to their perspective sport. There will be analysis from both sides of the argument as well as a glance at the world of college sports in general. It is purely an analytic approach, meaning there will be no opinionated statements made.

Research Question

        Do Division I college athletes deserve monetary compensation for their contributions to a school’s athletic program?

Theoretical Frame

        In general, there are two different major theories regarding the debate of college athletic compensation. In the scholarly article, “Should college athletes be paid?” author Allen Sack describes one of those theories as the “amateur model.” In a nutshell, he supports keeping college athletes uncompensated because they are viewed as amateurs in their sport. This opinion is part of the larger theory that college athletes are attending college for an education first, while playing sports as an extracurricular. In a different article also called “Should College Athletes be Paid?” author John Brill also acknowledges the model of amateurism. He states, “A key point as to why the NCAA would not want to pay athletes is to maintain the amateur status of its reputation.” However, the article also goes into detail about why this may be wrong. Brill continues to discuss the use of the model of amateurism as a “guise used by the NCAA to take advantage of gifted athletes…” This is where the second theory is argued and the larger picture unveiled. The second theory basically states that the athletes are cash cows for the universities and are entitled to some of that compensation. Brill cites the granting of sports scholarships or easier admission (due to playing a sport) as flaws in the amateur model.

        Any way one looks at it, this debate has its fair share of angles and makes for a great analytical piece. I intend to guide this research paper around the two major theories while also covering the less-obvious arguments. This has been a debate for a long time now, and there is no lack of information in regards to this topic. I believe this is a very interesting topic that also happens to be practical, seeing as many of us are or have friends that are student athletes.

Research and Plan

        There has really not been a definitive study done to sway people in either direction when it comes to college athlete compensation. This is merely because college athletes have never been paid and it is against the rules of universities to do so at the current time. However, the article “NCAA Division I Athletics: Amateurism and Exploitation” gives a simpler outlook on the debate by defining the words outlined in the title- amateurism and exploitation (Miller). This article discusses the history of college sports and how the term “student athlete” was born. It also theorizes the rationalization the NCAA takes for its views and actions while discussing the arguments of the pro-compensation supporters. This proves to be a good resource because it is somewhat less opinionated and more “on the fence” when it comes to the debate. This could take some of the author bias out of the argument.

        In the first article I mentioned, “Should college athletes be paid?” there is an adequate control group presented for a potential experiment regarding this debate. While discussing amateurism, Sack describes the Ivy League and Division III colleges as more effective at promoting amateurism because those schools do not grant benefits such as athletic scholarships to athletes. Examining these schools and comparing them to the larger Division I schools could provide a great pseudo-case study in regards to the debate. I am looking further into this, although the literature on amateurism in Division III athletics is much more scarce than that of Division I.
Amongst the mountains of remaining literature, I am also looking at “Athletes Are Already Paid With Their Education” by Richard Burton and Unpaid Professionals by Andrew Zimbalist. In his article, Burton points the finger at the athletes themselves as the reason for lack of compensation. He concludes that the students have shown a great deal of satisfaction in regards to the non-financial benefits of being a student athlete, pushing the possibility of compensation further and further out of reach. This sparks the possibility of potential interviews with student athletes to get their take on this idea and see if that theory really holds up amongst the athletes at Rutgers. Zimbalist’s book goes into much greater detail, ranging from the history of college sports to the modern implications of compensation of student athletes.