User:Jghusky88/sandbox

Arguments against paying college athletes College athletes that receive a full scholarship to college already benefit from perks that the general student body does not receive. College athletes are able to take advantage of free room and board, the best dorm rooms on campus, free books and classes, and first choice of classes they want.[1] A college athlete can receive up to $120,000 in total scholarships; they already are being paid for their participation.

"The average fair market value of top-tier college football and men’s basketball players is over $100,000 each. If college sports shared their revenues the way pro sports do, the average Football Bowl Subdivision player would be worth $121,000 per year, while the average basketball player at that level would be worth $265,000.[2] Out of 332 schools currently competing in the NCAA Division I, fewer than a dozen have athletic departments that are making a profit. [citation needed] 14 of the 120 programs that comprise the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) are profitable. [citation needed] 88% of the top football programs in the country are losing money. [citation needed] Most universities are unable to pay for these athletes, along with the coaches and renovations on stadiums, out of money earned from athletics.[3] Kenny Mossman of the University of Oklahoma (OU), estimated that the cost to OU would be $3.6 million a year if stipends were $1,000 a month.[4]

College athletes currently receive an enormous amount benefits when they step on campus. They are able to pick their classes before any other students. They also receive the best tutoring possible to ensure they will be eligible for their respective sport season. Many people make the argument today that they should be paid for all they do for the university. Some people also believe that they are already being paid. They are on the receiving end of more than a few benefits. Today, some schools can cost up $100,000 by the start of the student’s senior year. College athletes have the benefit of not having the burden of paying their college off after school. They receive one of the most important assets an individual can receive for little or no cost. The current system is working fine, and college athletes do not need to be paid.

Further examples of athletes being treated like royalty at their universities can be seen through the University of Oregon. The John E. Jaqua Academic Center for the varsity athletes at the University of Oregon is a 40,000 square foot facility to assist athletes with their education. The extravagant space contains an auditorium with 114 leather seats, dozens of tutoring rooms and academic and life-skill advising offices, a computer and graphics lab, library with study spaces, lounge with large flat-screen televisions and deluxe sofas, as well as a kitchen and café filled with food and new equipment. The staff, technology, and rooms inside the academic center are all reserved for the varsity athletes, who make up 2.5% of the student population at the school. In addition, the 1,700 private tutoring sessions per week are conveniently displayed on a massive screen similar to the screens that display flight information at an airport. Adding to the exclusive treatment the student-athletes receive, the academic center is surrounded by a moat. The athletic facility adds to the royal treatment of the student-athletes. The University of Oregon’s football practice facility is 145,000 square feet and contains three indoor practice fields, a two story weight room, countless whirlpools and medical tables, enormous lockers, and luxurious lounges containing gaming stations and flat-screen televisions. Other amenities at the practice facility include a cafeteria (players receive high quality, tailored, nutritious diets), multiple conference rooms and classrooms, a pool table and barbershop. The student-athletes have luxurious facilities at their disposal, and they are already getting paid in the form of their scholarships.

If full ride scholarships to top universities is not suitable compensation for student-athletes, a college education and degree is being devalued. Student-athletes may heavily invest their time into the sport they play, however, that does not change the worth of their academic degree. Every student-athlete is not going to become a professional athlete, but they are guaranteed a college education and degree to help them graduate with little or no debt via their scholarships. If universities start paying student-athletes, the universities would not be focused on what the student-athletes are attending for, which is the education and degree they receive. An education in the long-run is very valuable, and with the scholarships the student-athletes get, they can take advantage of a great education at little to no cost.

Universities offer students more than just the education and degree they receive. Lectures by prominent industry figures, concerts, movies, fitness facilities, student clubs are a few additional benefits that universities generally subsidize through fees added to tuition bills. This means that the full-scholarship athletes can attend these activities all for free. Universities also offer unique benefits to the student-athletes such as team-only workout facilities, top coaches, nutrition personnel, shiny gyms, lush fields, medical care, travel to away games, customized meal plans, free gear, and athletic attire. The university also offers the student-athletes the opportunity to play competitive games in large stadiums packed with committed fans, which allows student-athletes to garner media attention, and name recognition.

Athletes are aware of what they are committing to when they sign their full-scholarship forms. The school will be in charge of paying the student-athletes’ expenses, and the student-athlete has the opportunity to earn an education, take part in academic and social activities in college, and play their sport in a high profile manner. The best schools in certain sports naturally will attract the best recruits, as evidenced by the fact that the championships in the major sports are usually won by the same small group of schools that have dominated the sport. If paying players becomes normal, the universities that have made money from their winning teams would have an even greater advantage in attracting recruits. These universities would be able to pay players more money, thus getting the best players.

Title IX needs to be considered in the discussion regarding paying college athletes. Title IX prohibits excluding female athletes from education and financial benefit. If a university decides to pay the football team, other teams will need to be paid as well. Further, paying college football players will result in universities entering heated bidding wars while they are attracting recruits.

Mark Emmert, NCAA president is opposed to paying college athletes because it would encourage universities to bribe athletes. Emmert believes that if student-athletes were paid to play, there would be more pressure on boosters and agents to bribe student-athletes to play for a certain university and to financially support them while they are playing at the university. Emmert stands by the ideals that student-athletes are students first, and he backs up this ideal by noting student-athletes' graduation rate across all demographics is greater than the non-athletes. Emmert also stands behind the ideal that the money student-athletes receive through their scholarships is equal or greater than payments the proponents of pay-for-play advocate for.

Works Cited: O’shaugnessy, Lynn. “8 things you should know about sports scholarships.” CBSmoneywatch. CBS moneywatch, 20 September 2012. Web. Apr. 17. 2016. <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/8-things-you-should-know-about-sports-scholarships/>

"The NCAA also is setting up a $17 million Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund that has no financial-need restrictions. It's to be used for "educational and developmental opportunities." [Nebraska Proposal, 2009]. This debate has caused certain elite colleges to take caution asking athletes to sign forms that prevent them from suing the college. The signed forms gives the college full imagery benefits, allowing them to use their names to sell team T-shirts and jerseys. Insurance wise - a plan proposed by William E. Kirwan, Ohio State University President, would insure athletes against injuries and mishaps during workouts, practices and games.[5]

Because of title IX, all college athletes would have to be paid, including athletes playing for teams that do not produce a lot of revenue. [citation needed] College sponsored sports would be cut in order to make a business case for paying athletes work economically. [citation needed] Colleges would still be able to field "club teams" for those sports. "Club team" players almost never receive scholarships and are truly amateur athletes in every sense of the word.

Non-revenue sports would suffer. Over all the sports available to division one programs, only Football and Basketball actually make a profit, with the exception of Baseball in very few instances. The rest of the sports either break even or, more often than not, cost the school more than they contribute. Larger universities would be the only ones able to pay their football/basketball players while supporting smaller market sports and are very few colleges fall into this category.[6] The colleges that do happen to fall into this category are in five out of the 33 division one conferences. Non-revenue sports likely will be thinned out, high school athletes will lose the chance to continue competing and a larger emphasis on collegiate competition will take place within the power five conferences.

Athletes’ Rights to Their Likenesses

Figuring out how to pay college athletes is more difficult than giving them the rights to their likenesses. Currently, college athletes do not make money off of jersey sales if the jersey has their number on it, and college athletes can not use their image to score an endorsement deal. A.J. Green was a wide receiver for the University of Georgio who sold his own jersey for personal profit. Because he was a student-athlete under the NCAA, it was illegal for him to do so and he was suspended four games. While serving his suspension, the University of Georgia continued to sell Green’s jerseys for its own financial gain. Ed O’Bannon’s case is at at the forefront of the movement to allow players to student-athletes to profit off their likenesses. The NCAA makes hefty profits by selling merchandise utilizing players’ identities in the form of their numbers. The student-athletes’ likenesses are being exploited so the NCAA can profit from their jerseys. Television broadcasts also utilize student-athletes’ likenesses without paying them. These are broadcasts that are part of million and billion-dollar deals between the NCAA and broadcasting companies such as ESPN, CBS, and Fox. The student-athletes’ names and images are show on television broadcasts and in days prior to the game in promotional clips. The student-athletes are not being paid for any of this usage.

Cases Involving Student-Athletes’ Likenesses

EA Sports manufactures the NCAA football and NCAA Basketball video games, and these games use the likenesses of the student-athletes on their respective teams. Former athletes have brought about lawsuits against the NCAA, the Collegiate Licensing Company (the NCAA’s licensing arm), and Electronic Arts, Incorporated (EA) over the use of student-athletes’ likenesses in the NCAA Football, Basketball, and March Madness video games. The state of California saw two lawsuits combine into one. The Keller v Electronic arts Incorporated and O’Bannon v NCAA combined to form the lawsuit In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation. Both cases see the plaintiffs accusing EA over their rights to publicity due to EA’s use of their likenesses as well as images in producing the NCAA video games. In late 2013, the plaintiffs and EA/the CLC settled for $40 million (terms of the settlement are supposedly confidential). EA used the defense that the First Amendment and four theories protected it. The four theories were: California’s transformative use test, the Rogers test, public interest test, and public affairs exemption. The court denied EA’s defense, and after applying the transformative use test, found EA did not fulfill necessary requirements to have protection.

In a separate but similar case, Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., Ryan Hart filed a lawsuit against the NCAA, CLC and EA stating his right to publicity was violated by EA for using his likeness in the NCAA Football videogame. EA tried to dismiss the case stating that they were protected by the First Amendment. This was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals. This case had the same test applied as the In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation. Similar conclusions were drawn in the Hart case, approximately two months before the In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation case. In the Hart case, in using the transformative use test, the court focused on individual athletes in the game. The biographical information combined with the likeness of an individual athlete was deemed a recreation in the game.