Share: mail

Last week the University of Connecticut won the NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Championship. However, the celebration was overshadowed by the news that Connecticut’s point guard, Shabazz Napier, made comments before the game about going to bed hungry some nights.

“I feel like a student athlete,” Napier told FOX Sports. Sometimes, there’s hungry nights where I’m not able to eat, but I still gotta play up to my capabilities.”

Every year, colleges and universities bring in millions of dollars in revenue from television deals, ticket sales, corporate sponsorships and merchandising. That revenue is based on the work that college athletes do on the field.

It is hard to believe that a player on a collegiate sports team can play for a national championship, risking injury, making the university millions in revenue, and maintain his or her academic responsibilities, while facing hunger.

The debate about whether or not to compensate college athletes has been raging for some time.

The National Collegiate Athletics Association is a non-profit organization that regulates and enforces the rules of over 12,000 member institutions and organizes their athletic programs.

The NCAA maintains that college athletes are amateurs and that compensating them monetarily would be a violation of their amateur status.

There are many strict rules that college athletes must abide by in order to maintain their athletic status. NCAA athletes must sign papers certifying them as amateurs and pledging to not violate any of the strict rules the association has laid out which prohibit the athletes from receiving any benefits beyond their scholarship.

Football and basketball in particular generate millions of dollars per year to their respective schools. And yet the athletes themselves aren’t allowed to receive compensation or gifts.

Johnny Manziel, the 2012 Heisman Trophy winner, made headlines in August 2013 when he was put under investigation by the NCAA. He was suspected of signing autographs in exchange for payment. Manziel was suspended for the first half of the first game of the 2013 season for what the NCAA called an “inadvertent violation” of the rules.

The National Labor Relations Board ruled last month that football players at Northwestern University provided enough evidence to classify them as employees, and they have the right to unionize.

The players say that they are seeking better medical coverage, concussion testing as well as the possibility of being compensated.

The NCAA released a statement saying that they were “disappointed” with the board’s ruling.

The NCAA maintains that college athletes are privileged to be able to play college sports and the value of athletic scholarships is sufficient enough payment.

However, in 2011 the National College Players Association released the findings of a report called “The Price of Poverty in Big Time College Sport.” The report found that 86 percent of college athletes live below the poverty line.

The report also found that if the NCAA shared their revenues in the way that professional sports leagues do, the average top tier football player would be worth over $100,000 per year, while the average top tier basketball player would be worth over $200,000.

The idea that being compensated for your own abilities somehow violates academic integrity only seems to pertain to college athletes. If a journalism student on scholarship submits an article to the local publication and receives payment for it, that student’s scholarship wouldn’t be in jeopardy.

Yet an athlete that sells his or her autograph, based on labor provided that also generated revenue toward the institution, is subject to losing everything.

It wouldn’t be difficult for colleges and universities to provide a small allowance for athletes on scholarship, in order for them to be able to cover necessities like food, clothing, toiletries and social expenses.

It would also discourage athletes from taking money under the table for their performance.

The NCAA’s current model reads more like indentured servitude. It takes advantage of the athlete’s ability while showing little regard for the welfare of the student.

It is up to the NCAA to take better care of its athletes. If a student is facing the stress of going hungry, or not having the money to socialize with other students, it not only hurts his or her ability to maintain academic responsibilities, but it also hurts his or her ability to perform well on the field.

Follow: rssyoutubeinstagrammail

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.