Research Blog #9: Argument and Counter-Argument

The student athlete compensation debate is one filled with arguments and counter-arguments. Among the arguments supporting compensation of student athletes, there is:

1. The idea that colleges make large revenues from ticket sales and should give the factors of production (players) part of that revenue.

2. Student athletes often do not have the time to get a job, and therefore need some source of income.

3. Companies and schools are capitalizing off of the likenesses of student athletes through merchandising and should be paying the student athletes for that right.

My paper is analytical, so I will not state whether or not I agree or disagree with any of those ideas. However, some common counter-arguments are:

1. The NCAA operates on the principle of "amateurism" which is maintained through strict guidelines that prohibit athlete salaries, among other rules.

2. Student athletes are students first, and they are receiving a free education. Therefore, a salary is unneeded.

3. The majority of colleges' athletic programs generally either break-even or operate at a financial deficit and do not truly profit off of student athletes.

In general, most of the literature I have used in my bibliography deals with the idea of amateurism and the use of merchandising by schools.

Research Blog #8: Interview

For my interview, I chose to pick the brain of a Rutgers track runner and good friend of mine, Adam Bergo. During the interview, I simply asked his opinion of the student athlete compensation debate and whether or not he believes division I athletes should be paid. Adam stated, "I don't believe that student athletes should receive a salary but greater compensation besides scholarship is needed. I believe universities and the NCAA should put together an annual bonus plan that awards the student athletes for their accomplishents because the pay and bonus is merit and performance based to keep the student-athletes at bay." I then brought attention to the video game licensing debate, and asked his opinion on the matter of schools selling the likenesses of their players for profit. He said he definitely thinks this is wrong because the players do not get paid. At the same time, he said he still approves initial idea of putting that revenue into a collective fund.

I chose Adam because I was interested in the opinion of a Rutgers athlete. At the same time, he is not a football or basketball player so I found him free of bias, which was a plus.

Research Blog #7: My Case

The point of my research is to present the arguments and possible causes in regard to the student athlete compensation debate. While I do have an opinion on the debate, I am choosing to withdraw it from my paper and remain as unbiased as possible and completely analytic. I would like the reader to draw his own conclusions based on the information I give about all angles of the argument. Amongst the two general arguments or "cases," there is one that supports the payment of college athletes and one that does not. The case that is against the compensation of Division I student athletes bases its beliefs of the idea of a term called "amateurism." Amateurism is a principle that the NCAA has upheld since the early 20th century and is loosely defined as the responsibility for student athletes to be students first and athletes second. That means they can not make a salary, have an agent, or engage in any other activities that mimic that of a professional athlete. The counter argument to this comes in the form of the second case. This case states that college athletes are being taken advantage of due to the huge revenues the NCAA generates for itself through tournaments and bowl games, not to mention ticket sales, video game licensing, and apparel (much of which uses the players' likenesses and names). Supporters of this case say that the NCAA has abandoned the idea of amateurism long ago, but keeps it as a principle so that they do not have to pay their athletes. While these two cases may be straight to the point, there also happens to be many other views on this debate that were discovered after some research and will be outlined in my final paper. For more information on these two arguments, I will post a couple articles that I used in my paper below.

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-ncaa-athletes-be-paid/college-athletes-are-already-paid-with-their-education

http://thesportjournal.org/article/ncaa-division-i-athletics-amateurism-and-exploitation

Research Blog #6: Visual

In this image found on the internet, we see a powerful display which supports those in favor of paying student athletes. It is significant because it shows the combined salary in 2011 of top 15 highest-paid coaches in college football to be 53.4 million dollars while the combined salaries of the 13,877 Division I football players to be nothing. This is startling data because colleges clearly do not view the idea of coaching as falling under the sanctity of amateurism. Also, it is usually not the likenesses and names of the coaches used for apparel and video game sales, which begs the question as to whether or not the student athletes are getting taken advantage of.

Literature Review #4

Markets: Cartel Behavior and Amateurism in College Sports

Lawrence M. Kahn

MLA Citation:



Kahn, Lawrence M. "Markets: Cartel Behavior and Amateurism in College Sports."Latest TOC RSS. American Economic Association, Winter 2007. Web. 13 Oct. 2013.


Summary:


This scholarly study examines the business habits of the NCAA and cross-analyzes it with the behavior and theory of cartels. In the economic analysis, author Lawrence M. Kahn discusses the decisions made by the NCAA and how those decisions effect overall revenue. He concludes that restricting payment to the players while preserving amateurism and generating revenue is evidence of cartel behavior. He also discusses the racial disparity in regards to where the money is going. In other words, the average athlete who is predominantly African-American is not getting paid while the predominantly white NCAA executive is taking in large revenues.


About the Author:


Lawrence M. Kahn is a Professor of Labor Economics and Collective Bargaining at Cornell University. He is also a Specialized Co-Editor of Economic Inquiry in the field of sports economics.


Key Terms:


Under-the-Table Payment- refers to the compensation many college athletes receive secretly and illegally from perspective talent agents.


Monopsony- a market situation in which there is only one buyer


Quotations:


"Evidence that the best college athletes are paid below a competitive level of compensation is based in part on estimates of the marginal revenue product of these players" (Kahn 211).


"Of course, going to college may have smaller benefits for those who don’t graduate, and low graduation rates in big-time athletic programs have received considerable publicity" (Kahn 213).


"Football and men’s basketball are by far the most lucrative sports, raising $12.97 million and $4.25 million, respectively, in revenue per Division I-A school in 2003, or about 59 percent of total revenues" (Fulks, 2005a, pp. 30, 48).


Value:


This is the first economic review I have looked at. It provides a supplement to the conclusions of the author in the form of economic analysis and numbers. This comes in handy because the motivations behind the behavior of the NCAA are largely because of the economic value of their decisions. This article is in support of student athlete compensation, and could be used in the counterargument against amateurism.

Literature Review #3

College Athletes Studies Guided Toward 'Major in Eligibility'

Jill Lieber Steeg

MLA Citation:

Steeg, Jill L., Jodi Upton, Patrick Bohn, and Steve Berkowitz. "College Athletes Studies Guided Toward 'Major in Eligibility'" USA Today (2008): n. pag. Web.

Summary:

This article provides an insight into the life of a college athlete that shows the darker side of college sports. It discusses how schools are urging their student-athletes to take up easier majors, and promoting an overall sense of "athletics first, academics second." While it maybe a mechanism for students to cope with the demands of being a student-athlete, picking an easier major is debatably making the idea of "amateurism" obsolete. The authors argue that the schools influence on the student-athletes borders grounds for academic fraud.

About the Author:

Jill Lieber Steeg is the owner and co-founder of Steeg Sports Management and Media Consulting. She is also a former senior write for both USA Today and Sports Illustrated. She has been nominated for the Pulitzer Prize twice and is an award-winning sports journalist.

Key Terms:

Clustering: the tendency of athletes to pick similar, less-challenging minors.

Social Sciences: the main degree many student-athletes at Kansas State University were "clustering" in.

Quotations:

"Cline says he found not-so-demanding courses that helped him have success in the classroom and on the field but did little for his dream of becoming a veterinarian" (Steeg).

"Some athletes say they have pursued — or have been steered to — degree programs that helped keep them eligible for sports but didn't prepare them for post-sports careers" (Steeg).

"Education specialists say such clustering raises a range of potential problems, including academic fraud; certain majors and classes having dubious academic requirements; and coaches and athletics academic advisers inappropriately influencing students' decisions on majors and classes" (Steeg).

Value:

This article presents possibly the best example of how privatization is effecting college sports. It shows an interesting trend that schools are starting to show. That is, pushing student-athletes more toward athletics and less toward academics. This definitely takes away from the idea of amateurism, and exposes the seemingly corrupt side of the NCAA and its constituents.

"

"

Th

Literature Review #2

NCAA Division I Athletics: Amateurism and Exploitation

Anthony W. Miller

MLA Citation:

Miller, Anthony W. "United States Sports Academy - "America's Sports University"" NCAA Division I Athletics: Amateurism and Exploitation. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Oct. 2013.

Summary:

This article is interesting because author Anthony W. Miller walks the line between multiple arguments regarding whether college athletics is considered amateurism or exploitation. He discusses three main arguments, two of which are cited to a man named Wertheimer. Both of Wertheimer's arguments support the general idea that student-athletes are being exploited because they are making the schools a revenue that they see no part of. The other argument is one of "mutual exploitation" which references the idea that colleges and student-athletes are mutually exploiting each other. This brings an interesting view of the debate because it is neither pro-athlete or anti-athlete.

About the Author:

Anthony W. Miller is the United States Deputy Secretary of Education under President Barrack Obama. He graduated from Purdue University with bachelor's degree in industrial engineering and received an M.B.A. from Stanford Graduate School of Business.

Key Terms:

Amateurism: reference to the fact that college athletes do not receive compensation for athletic services.

Exploitation: an individual gaining something by taking an unfair advantage of another individual.

Quotations:

"Although the NCAA and the schools reserve the right to use a player’s images and names for commercial purposes, no athlete may be endorsed by or receive any payment from businesses or corporations" (Suggs, 2009; Murphy & Pace, 1994).


"In other examples, athletes have been known to become student-athletes for the sole purpose of receiving expert instruction, media exposure, and training. As a result of those benefits, their future earning power increased" (Kahn, 2007).


"Deciding how to compensate student-athletes more fairly could potentially result in completely restructuring intercollegiate athletics. If the NCAA and its member schools truly desires to protect their student-athletes 'from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises,' then they will be forced to reexamine their own practices" (2010-2011 NCAA Manual, 2010, p. 4).


Value:

This article references the arguments of Wertheimer that are in support of compensation, but also analyzes the argument that the exploitation may be mutual. Although the conclusion of the piece seems to be on the fence, it is more than likely that the author is in support of Wertheimer's arguments. The real value to my research, however, comes in the form of the aforementioned third argument pertaining to mutual exploitation. This is one of the "outside the box" arguments that I am interested in.