To Pay or Not to Pay? That is the Que$tion

10/3/2019

Joe Iuliano, Assistant Head of Academic Affairs

In mid-August, the answer in a Southern California appellate court was a resounding “no” to the assertion that National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I athletes should be paid to play. In this instance, the court ruled that NCAA athletes are not employees and do not deserve compensation for their play on college courts, rinks, pools, fields, floors, and diamonds. But in mid-September, the answer from California lawmakers, who approved a bill to “allow athletes to be compensated for use of their name, image and likeness for marketing purposes,” was a resounding “yes.” And California Governor Gavin Newsom added another “yes” with his signing into law of that same legislation just this past Monday to the chagrin of the NCAA.

As a former athlete cut from a Division III basketball team—you can’t be a 6’2” center in high school and play that position (or transition easily to another one) in college, even in the 1970s—and a former college student, I thought to weigh in here. I always figured that student-athletes were paid for their play through partial or full-ride scholarships. Athletes who were recruited and offered scholarships received 4 “free” years of college. Today that means a full-ride athlete at the University of Southern California, a private university, gets $75,311 or so worth of tuition, fees, books, and room and board for playing a Division I sport. Multiply that by 4 and the total equals $301,244+. (I have added the plus sign because as we well know, college costs rise annually, so this total would probably be closer to $310,000 by the fourth year.) 

Let’s go back to California for the most expensive public school, the University of California Berkeley, where a full-ride scholarship would cover an out-of-state total cost of $60,624 for the first year and $242,496+ (so probably closer to $250,000 when all was said and done). Athletes looking to play professionally may or not may also have a fifth year in college if they red-shirt (stay out of play for a year for development or health purposes, which preserves a year of eligibility). That five-year athlete can potentially add another $60,000-$75,000 to the scholarship and finish their collegiate career with a graduate degree to boot. Also, as of 2018, colleges give Division I student-athletes cash stipends of a few thousand dollars to cover the full cost of attendance—I left out travel and miscellaneous expenses. Division I athletes also have access to meals and snacks 24/7. All that sounds like pretty good compensation to me.

Or does it?

The recent legal events in California have legitimately brought back to the front pages (home pages?) of our newspapers (news feeds?) the college student-athlete argument for remuneration for services rendered in the high-revenue-producing NCAA Division I sports. How high is the revenue generated by college sports? “In 2014, the 10 schools that made the most money in college sports averaged revenue that was $132.5 million more than the average those schools spent on scholarships.” (from Business Insider).  And in 2016-2017 the NCAA made $1.06 billion, much of that from March Madness, the men’s and women’s DI championship basketball tournaments. The NCAA is a non-profit organization, so where does all this money go? In 2017 the NCAA provided this description of the destination of its earnings:

$216.6 million — Sport Sponsorship and Scholarship Funds

$167. million — Division I Basketball Performance Fund

$103.4 million — Division I Championships*

$84.5 million — Student Assistance Fund+

$74.4 million — Student-Athlete Services and Championship Support

$84.5 million — Division I Equal Conference Fund

$48 million — Academic Enhancement Fund

$41.8 million — Division II Allocation Fund

$41.4 million — Membership Support Services

$32.3 million — Division III Allocation

$9.7 million — Division I Conference Grants

$3.4 million — Educational Programs

$88.3 million — Other Association-Wide Expenses

$43.4 million — General and Administrative Expenses

* “Provides college athletes the opportunity to compete for a championship and includes support for team travel, food and lodging.”

+ “Distributed to Division I student-athletes for essential needs that arise during their time in college.” (from ncaa.org)

The NCAA’s tag line is: “Student-athletes are at the heart of the NCAA’s mission.” If the mission is to make a billion dollars, then this tag line certainly applies. Without student-athletes, there are no money-making opportunities in collegiate sports. Note that the 2019 NCAA Division I men's basketball season and championship was promoted frequently and regularly as the “Zion Williamson show.” Williams, a Duke freshman and ultimately the NBA’s #1 draft pick, did get paid by the NBA ($20 million) and Nike ($75 million), but not by the NCAA.

Many game programs offered at DI ticketed events bear the likeness of one of more student-athletes, as do promotional posters, website banners, etc. I still have a Harvard basketball program with a picture of Brimmer graduate Kyle Casey, ’09 prominently displayed on the cover. The Ivy League gives no athletic scholarships (it only offers need-based aid) and pay no stipends. During Kyle’s years playing for Harvard, ticket prices for games at Lavietes Pavilion rose substantially. After graduation he has earned a salary playing for several pro teams in Europe and the US.

There are approximately 460,000 NCAA student-athletes: 37% at the DI level, 24% at DII, and 39% at DIII. Every athlete at the D1 level should be compensated. They are in work-study jobs like other college students, and they are helping the NCAA, who trades on their talents, skills and names, raise that billion dollars annually.

Let me conclude by admitting my biases in all this. From my experience—and let me be clear here that I am a parent of 2 NCAA DIII student-athletes—the majority of student-athletes play without scholarships at the DIII level (they are not thinking about going pro), with this one significant caveat, female athletes at all three levels are undoubtedly student-athletes. This is evident in their higher graduation rates and the fact that they have fewer opportunities to play professionally after college (or during college by leaving early to gain a pro contract). However, there are most definitely true student-athletes at the DI and DII levels as well. I know this from firsthand experience because I have met and spoken with, taken graduate courses with outstanding student-athletes playing at all levels, including Brimmer and May student-athletes who went to highly selective academic institutions. With that being said, I still believe that the NCAA, which I don’t see making any course adjustments with all that money on the table, should compensate its scholarship athletes who are helping them make that money, and then do a better job of sharing the wealth as well by supporting students and academics in all divisions. 

To Pay or Not to Pay? That is the Que$tion

Brimmer and May School