Why can't NCAA athletes get paid by outside sponsors?

Aaron Webstey

Read a decent article here about why it's debatable whether colleges themselves should be paying athletes. Easy to argue that free education (especially in the US) is a pretty f'ing good payment. Again - debatable, but not what I'm wondering about.

What I wonder is, why can't an NCAA athlete take a Nike sponsorship and still run for their college? The Canadian kid Andre DeGrasse got a bronze in the 100m at worlds, and (according to reports - let's just assume it's true, for argument's sake) has 7-figure offers floating his way.

What is the danger, and/or who gets hurt, if an NCAA D1 track star is cashing in on their talent while still racing for their college? Wouldn't that just encourage more of these people to stay in school, rather than be tempted to drop out in favour of the payday?

(DeGrasse is apparently staying in school, BTW, and keeping his collegiate status).

Susan_B_Agony

Because it would hurt the "gentleman amateur" thing the NCAA has a hard on for

Matt

Because then the NCAA would have to pay out to all the athletes % of the TV revenue.

Brooks Doughtie

@AaronWebstey Power, plain and simple. In regards to your NIKE advertisement, it would also likely mean that said athlete would have to choose a nike "school". AKA, he couldn't/wouldn't get the nike sponsorship if he went to say NC State (local uni that is an addidas school) or any school that wasn't affliated with a non-nike sponsorship. Under Armor, Nike, and Addidas are right now the big 3 sponsors of most ncaa schools.

But beyond that, it's one of those slippery slopes. The issue I see with it is that the NCAA clamors for this amateur BS of 1940's feeling, when the reality is, athletes are simply a cog in the big business wheel.

It really is almost like pros and IM. IM simply uses the pros as little pawns and provides them "just enough" to keep them for the most part quiet. Well in NCAA the "keeping quiet" now has come at the cost of full scholarship for athletes now. So does that change in 20 years when we all get feed up with the BS that is college athletics?

yournotunique

Actually, @Brooks Doughtie, I was just reading that, until 1948 colleges *were* paying athletes (http://thesportjournal.org/article/pointcounterpoint-paying-college-athletes/). So that's even more of an indictment against the "amateur" argument, in my opinion.

M_Ware

1) @Brooks Doughtie Go State, woof woof
2) @AaronWebstey I know you didn't want to go into this aspect, but it is dear to me. Lots of scholarship athletes do not end up with a free degree. We paid for several semesters at the end of my husband's eligibility in order for him to amass enough related credits for a degree. The guidance from his advisors was all about what was best from a football standpoint, not an academic one. (This was not at NCSU, but the same emphasis was there, too.)

Aaron Webstey

@M Ware very interesting, and well within the vein of this thread I think. I don't know enough about it and just figured that if you get recruited to a D1 school, you don't pay tuition!

TimOLeary

If the NCAA were able to get a cut, and by cut I mean the entire sponsorship, then everything would be fine... Here is my loooong take on it. (I'm very much pro-athletes getting paid, btw...)

I think there are two parts in play - one, as others have mentioned, is simply control. The NCAA and its conferences want to control everything athletes do to enhance their own marketability. By controlling what shoe/jersey/logo every player on every team wears allows the NCAA and its conferences to leverage massive marketing deals with various companies. The NCAA has a whole host of sponsors, each Conference has its own sponsors, and individual schools do as well. I'd make a somewhat educated guess that each and every one of these sponsorship deals has some level of exclusivity. Thus, (as others mentioned) if a school or program at a school is sponsored by Adidas, and the athlete is sponsored by Nike, Adidas will not be pleased if the player wears Nike gear at events. Sound familiar to USATF? Michael Jordan's son had a similar issue when he was a college athlete as well, so this is not a new concern for the NCAA.

The second part is employee/"Student-Athlete" status. The NCAA will do everything in its power to prevent "Student-Athletes" from becoming "Student-Employee Athletes." That is, in my opinion, the biggest issue that the NCAA currently faces. If a student athlete was found to be an employee, the entire model of "student-athletes" would crumble under both Federal and State labor laws. This would then likely require the NCAA to either require each athlete to become an employee of their respective school (NFL model) or of the NCAA (NBA model). Student athletes would then likely form a Union (Northwester, below), and they would need to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), similar to what many professional leagues have. All of this would mean less money for the NCAA, conferences, and school administrators. They would lose all of the power/control they currently have. Recently, the NLRB declined jurisdiction (after initially approving) regarding the forming of a Union by Northwestern football players. The sole purpose of the Union was to establish that "student-athletes" were actually student employees entitled to various protections under Federal labor laws.

The connection from marketing deals to employee status is simple - if an athlete is getting sponsored in college, they are not getting sponsored because they are a student. Rather, the sole purpose for Nike/Adidas/Brooks/etc. offering cash for branding is to monetize the athlete's athletic abilities. My opinion is that the NCAA believes this would erode the line between student-athlete that the NCAA has fought so hard to maintain, as we would now be rewarding the player based solely on their athletic abilities that have no relationship to their student status. Many throw out the free education aspect, but we all know how that plays out once an athlete is no longer useful to the school/NCAA, as well as how many athletes are not on full rides.

While greed certainly plays a role, I think this is why the NCAA is so strict on athletes receiving any type of outside funds. The amateur/professional status argument is just filler, IMO.

Aaron Webstey

So, "because socialism"?

Thanks @TimOLeary and everyone else. Very enlightening for me.

Brooks Doughtie

AaronWebstey said:

@M Ware very interesting, and well within the vein of this thread I think. I don't know enough about it and just figured that if you get recruited to a D1 school, you don't pay tuition!

It's not the tuition that is the issue for "scholarship" athletes. It's the fact that they get paid for lets say 15 meals a week and of course eat like 21 (7x3=21 meals). So they have to find ways to cover that cost if they cant afford it. It's the "fees" that are associated in the "fine print" that people have to end up paying for.

What's happened now with the big NCAA ruling this past year has been "full cost of attendance". So that covers some "spending" money, tuition, and all the fees associated and it also gives them free dining priveledges during school. NCAA schools have come under alot of pressure from bball and football players who think they deserve better treatment. So to make it fair, "full cost of attendance" has been announced for all scholarship players. It's going to cost schools millions of dollars extra, but a definite positive movement since these schools make millions on TV deals, march madness and college football.

ESPN pays SEC conference (southeastern conference) roughly ~$45 million per year I believe for the SEC channel that is exclusively on ESPN network of channels.

Brooks Doughtie

M Ware said:

1) @Brooks Doughtie Go State, woof woof
2) @AaronWebstey I know you didn't want to go into this aspect, but it is dear to me. Lots of scholarship athletes do not end up with a free degree. We paid for several semesters at the end of my husband's eligibility in order for him to amass enough related credits for a degree. The guidance from his advisors was all about what was best from a football standpoint, not an academic one. (This was not at NCSU, but the same emphasis was there, too.)

#1- yes graduated there in 2004, and coached there for club level tri team.

#2- That's a shame, just a ton of pressure put on the players by the coaching staff. MTV about 10 years ago did a documentary on 2 players at Notre Dame. One went to wall street for a summer internship and one stayed on campus for "optional" summer camp/training. The one that went to wall street for a summer job that summer would always talk about the pressure he would get from other players and the coaches that he might lose his job if he didnt attend
the "optional" team practices. He basically said, "I'm looking out for ME, because i know no one else will". They showed highlights of the following season. He went on to start all 12 games that year (he was an OL i think).

M_Ware

I'm just thankful he hung in there and graduated, so many don't have the ability or resources to make that happen.

Brooks Doughtie

Just a note. NCAA has accepted triathlon as a sponsored sport now. So these regulations/restrictions will apply to any and all women NCAA triathletes. So far about 8-10 schools have picked up the sport.

idking90

It's also not just the "other stuff" that's not covered by a scholarship. Some sports physically can't offer the full number of scholarships. Baseball, for example, offers 11.7, while football offers the full 80+ roster. Regardless of how much the school wants to spend on baseball players, it can only award 11.7 scholarships worth of money from the athletic department. Of course, if they want a player bad enough, they can find academic sources of money, but those may have additional stipulations like choice of major, higher minimum GPA, etc.

Brent_R

I highly recommend reading Joe Nocera's work such as this and this on NCAA economics.

TimOLeary

@Brent_R +1. Great reads indeed. I also loved Sonny Vaccaro's 30 for 30 documentary Sole Man. Really insightful into how easy it is for coaches to get gobs of money only for the future endorsement deals of their athletes that can't get a dime (aside from free gear...)

yournotunique

There was a Olympic level skier who did pretty well with sponsorships and modeling that decided to play football at the University of Colorado for a couple years (was pretty good, too). The NCAA ruled that he couldn't accept those sponsorships and modeling contracts anymore because he was now a football player. Even though they (the skiing side of things) had absolutely nothing to do with football.

In conclusion, fuck the NCAA.

Aaron Webstey

Could be worse - in Canada, it wasn't long ago that we couldn't even give out sports scholarships. Nothing. When I was in Uni, if the school was caught giving ANY financial aid that was deemed to have no merit other than sports, it was big trouble. This was so that the smaller schools could remain competitive with the big, rich ones. So again, basically 'because socialism'.

yournotunique

Oh, it's not socialism, it's so the athletic directors and coaches and executives and everyone *but* the athletes can make money. Competition has nothing to do with it anymore.

halvard

I think NCAA is a scam. It is a pro doping money machine for everybody but the athletes and most of the universities. But them I am not from the USA. But I have attend universities in Norway and in the USA. In Europe you do not get into university based on sport or who your dad/mom is. You get in on your grades. But many athletes attend universities and combine both high level training and getting an education. This is possible without the universities offering fake classes.

I found it quite pathetic that my university here in Seattle UW was complaining about lack of money when they built a new stadium. Maybe the money should go to science instead.

Aaron Webstey

I remember being surprised when I learned about Australian 'Uni games' or whatever it's called, too. Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the time I was told that Uni sports in Australia are kind of a joke, like a big booze-fest with some events thrown in. Seems like maybe separation of sports and school might not be a bad thing.

Matt

Aaron, that's like ANY undergrad "games".

Aaron Webstey

True @Matt , but the impression I got was that the whole University sports thing was similar. No 'qualifying for CIs' like we have here, no big machinery like in the US, almost more of a club sport deal. Any Aussies out there to confirm/deny?

Brooks Doughtie

I saw an interesting stat that showed a map of "state employees" and I think 42 out of the 50 states the highest paid employee was college football/basketball coach in said state.

Matt

From here: http://deadspin.com/infographic-is-your-states-highest-paid-employee-a-co-489635228