Do you follow college sports? Did you know that college athletes can now make money? They are not paid by their colleges or universities, but they may receive gifts from boosters; enter into agreements with companies to use their names, images and likenesses; and approve products.
What do you think of that? If you play a sport, would you like to play in college one day? Do you think you could make money doing this?
In “Student. Athlete. Magnate?» Bruce Schoenfeld wrote about July 2021 changes to the rules governing college athletics that allow student-athletes to earn money through corporate sponsorships and accept money from fans. But few players, he writes, see them:
For more than a century, or as long as the NCAA has presided over college sports, athletes had no legal way to get anything more tangible from their achievements than plaques and trophies. The rules were as clear as they were strict: players could not benefit from any advantages linked to their participation in a sport. Over the years, football and men’s basketball have generated billions of dollars for television networks, corporate sponsors and universities. Seven-figure salaries for coaches have become commonplace. Players, however, could get nothing other than a free – often superficial – education.
This changed on July 1, 2021. Following a Supreme Court decision against the NCAA, the organization ended nearly all of its restrictions on what athletes could earn through the use of their names, images and likenesses, an amorphous category known as NIL. Overnight, these athletes could make deals with companies and endorse their products. They might even accept money from promoters — usually longtime donors or local businessmen with ties to a university — in deals that previously would have led to harsh sanctions against their teams. Administrators across the country were surprised by the sudden turnaround. “It’s not a hole in the dike,” is how Vince Ille, senior associate athletic director, describes the NCAA’s change of direction. “It’s the destruction of the entire dam.”
The article continues:
The upheaval that gave college athletes the right to make money from their sports began with a reasonable grievance. In 2014, Ed O’Bannon, a former power forward on the UCLA basketball team, sued the NCAA and EA Sports because he felt entitled to earn revenue from a video game bearing his image. His main contention was that the NCAA’s rules prohibiting student-athlete compensation were a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The U.S. district judge who heard the case agreed with O’Bannon. In 2019, the same judge issued a similar ruling in a separate lawsuit, known as the Alston case. These decisions struck a chord with many sports fans, who identified with O’Bannon’s position. When the California legislature passed a law that year allow college athletes to hire agents and negotiate trade deals, Gavin Newsom, the state’s governor, signed it on HBO with LeBron James of the Los Angeles Lakers sitting beside him.
The NCAA then understood that change was inevitable. This fall, it surveyed its members about whether revenue should be shared by all players or kept by those who enter into individual deals. When the North Carolina football team met to discuss the issue, a quarterback named Sam Howell, then a freshman, argued that letting players profit from the deals they had negotiated would unfairly favor those , like him, who occupied renowned positions. Everyone pretty much agreed. “I knew NIL was going to happen,” Cunningham says now, “but I didn’t think it would happen the way it did. I thought we’d start with group licensing – bringing back video gaming, jersey sales, things that you could to some extent control. He thought schools would make deals, collect the money, then distribute it among their athletes.
In the months that followed, the NCAA created a model for distributing money among schools. But following the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion upholding the lower court’s decision in the Alston case, the organization decided that any limitation on college athletes’ earning potential could result in a lawsuit — and that it would likely lose in court. Ultimately, the NCAA (which declined to comment for this article) felt comfortable imposing only a few rules on its member institutions regarding the agreements athletes could enter into. The most basic rule is that for an athlete to earn money, they must provide something of apparent value in return. You can’t just give $10,000 to Black Leaking; he should at least pose for a selfie with you, or sign an autograph, or maybe agree to call your sister on her birthday. Income cannot directly compensate for performance – a specific amount per touchdown pass, for example. Schools cannot pay their players, although some coaches have proposed that college athletes be treated as salaried employees. Additionally, the promise of deals cannot be used to recruit high school students or to entice current students to move through a web portal created in 2018 to make player movements more transparent. The rule banning recruiting, which is virtually unenforceable, is widely believed to be broken almost every day by one school or another. The other rules are fragile enough to be easily circumvented.
The opportunity to earn money while playing college sports is available to every athlete, from football’s Heisman Trophy winner to small college wrestlers. But of the approximately 520,000 students currently competing in intercollegiate athletics, perhaps 519,000 win nothing at all. A large majority of the deals reward the best players on competitive national teams in two sports: soccer and men’s basketball. Some deals are as lucrative as those earned by established professionals. According to On3, this academic year, Alabama quarterback Bryce Young will earn at least $3.2 million in total from Nissan, BMW of Tuscaloosa, mobile payment service Cash App and other companies.
Students, read the entire articleso tell us:
-
What do you think about the Supreme Court’s recent decision allowing student-athletes to earn money through the use of their names, images, and likenesses (NIL)? Do you think the decision goes far enough in terms of player compensation, or does it go too far?
-
The article points out that “of the approximately 520,000 students currently competing in intercollegiate athletics, perhaps 519,000 win nothing at all.” Is it right? Do you think college athletes who make money — like Armando Bacot, a senior on the North Carolina basketball team who will make about $500,000 this year, or Bryce Young, a quarterback Alabama who will earn at least $3.2 million – should share it with their teammates? Their school? Or is this money all theirs?
-
Should all college athletes be paid? Or are their scholarships, free education and fame enough? If so, what do you think is fair compensation?
-
Are you a fan of college sports? If so, which schools and programs do you support? Do you think NIL will help or hurt college athletics? What ideas do you have for improving college sports – for players and fans?
Students aged 13 and over in the United States and Britain, and 16 and over elsewhere, are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public and may be published in print.
Find more student opinion questions here. Teachers, look at this guide to learn how to incorporate these prompts into your classroom.
