State Legislator Proposes Bill to Pay College Athletes: Change is Coming

Alston v.NCAA ruling on student athletes educational benefits

Change is inevitable for college athletics as another legislator has made a move in support of college athletes rights. Washington State representative, Drew Stokesbary, has introduced a bill that would allow college athletes in Washington to profit off their name, image, and likeness. The current college athletics system is extremely unfair to the athletes who propel the billion dollar industry. Everyone can make money, except for the labor force. Coaches sign million dollar contracts.  Schools and conferences garner million dollar television deals.  Meanwhile, athletes are only able to receive a cost-of-attendance scholarship. A scholarship is invaluable. However, athletes should not be limited exclusively to that form of compensation. This is especially true for athletes who could garner endorsement deals.

Come on Now, Everyone Should be Able to Profit off Their Own Name, Image, and Likeness

The ability to capitalize off one’s own name, image, and likeness would seem to be one of the fundamental tenants of American capitalism. For the most part, it is except in the context of college athletics. Currently, college athletes are unable to profit off their name, image, and likeness without being subject to losing their athletic eligibility. Meanwhile, schools are able to market the athletes however they see fit, without the athletes receiving a dime above their scholarship. This is exactly what the bill seeks to change for college athletes in Washington state.

If Stokesbary’s bill is signed into law, college athletes in Washington will be able to profit off their name, image, and likeness. The athletes will be free to enter endorsement deals without fear of losing their eligibility. Whether this bill or some variation of it will actually become law remains to be seen. However, that is not the most important part of the introduction of the bill. The introduction of the bill is important because it proves that attitudes are continuing to change regarding college athletes’ rights. With a change in attitudes, real change is sure to follow.

Support is Growing for College Athlete Rights

More and more people are starting to acknowledge the injustices of the current college athletics system. Accordingly, the current model is being challenged on all fronts. Washington state appears to be leading the way in challenging it legislatively. However, last year a congressman from North Carolina called for college athletes to be allowed to profit off their name, image, and likeness. Representative Mark Walker did this in hopes of sparking a national debate on the issue.

The current model is being challenged in court in Alston v. NCAA. College sports enthusiasts eagerly await federal district court judge Wilken’s decision on whether the NCAA and Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) conferences are violating federal antitrust laws by capping scholarships to cost-of-attendance. If the plaintiffs are successful, major changes to college athletics may be seen.  Either way, the losing side will surely appeal. It is possible that the case could reach the Supreme Court, should they chose to hear the case.

Similarly, the current college athletics model is being challenged by start-up leagues like the Historical Basketball League (HBL). The HBL is a start-up basketball league. The HBL seeks to offer a better option by compensating its players while ensuring they receive a free quality education. With all of the challenges being lodged at the current college athletics system, change is sure to come one way or another.

Trevor Lawrence Should be Able to Receive his Worth While at Clemson

Trevor Lawerence

On Monday, Clemson decisively defeated Alabama for the College Football National Championship. The Tigers overcame the Crimson Tide 44-16. Not only did Clemson defeat the almighty “Bama,” Clemson sent a strong message defeating them by 28 points. Leading Clemson to victory was true freshman quarterback Trevor Lawerence. Lawerence undisputedly emerged as the star of the game. He threw three touchdown passes and amassed 347 passing yards. Accordingly, Lawerence’s performance was truly unprecedented. He defeated the most powerful team in college football who boasted a Heisman Trophy candidate quarterback.

After the game, sports fans and commentators began criticizing the fact that Lawerence is ineligible for the upcoming NFL draft. Critics argued that it is unfair that players do not have the option to enter the draft when they see fit. Similarly, they argue that is not fair that elite athletes are told when they may go professional and make money off of their athletic abilities.

Division 1 college football is a billion dollar industry. However, the athletes who propel that industry receive essentially no compensation above a cost-of-attendance scholarship. However, the coaches make millions of dollars each year. Perhaps, the real issue is not when Lawerence or other similarly situated players should be eligible for the NFL draft. Perhaps the real issue is why playing professionally is the only option such players have to make money for their athletic abilities?

Why is Trevor Lawerence Ineligible for the NFL Draft?

Lawerence is ineligible for the draft because the NFL’s rules say a player is not draft eligible until he is three years removed from his high school graduating class. Proponents of the rules argue that they are in place to protect future NFL prospects from prematurely entering the league before they are physically ready. However, opponents believe that it is unfair that Lawrence and other NFL prospects do not have the option to start their professional careers whenever they see fit. Accordingly, fans and critics argue that Lawerence and other NFL prospects should have the ability to chose when to start their NFL careers.

Perhaps elite athletes should have the ability to freely decide when to turn pro. However, this issue is not the real injustice. The real injustice is the fact that elite NFL prospects cannot make money off their athletic abilities while in college. This is especially true given the fact that the coaches make millions off of the labor of the athletes.

Coaches Make Millions Off of the Labor of Elite Talent, While the Talent has to Wait for a  Professional Career That May Never Manifest.

Take the two coaches who were in the championship game for instance. Those two coaches were Clemson’s Dabo Swinney and Alabama’s Nick Saban. Saban’s base salary was $7.5 million. He made an additional $400,000 for appearing in the CFP semifinal game. Even though the Crimson Tide lost, Saban still cleared an additional $600,000 just for appearing in the championship game. Swinney’s base salary for the season was $6 million.  He received an additional $200,000 for his CFP semifinal appearance.  Since Clemson won the championship, Swinney will receive an additional $250,000.

Meanwhile, the labor force (the football players) that makes these incredible salary numbers possible receives a very small amount in comparison. A scholarship for a college education is invaluable. However, when compared to coaches salaries, television deals, and other sponsorships, does it really seem fair that athletes are limited to their scholarship?

The Focus Should be on Lawernce’s Inability to Profit off his Athleticism in College Instead of on his Inability to go to the NFL

It is not fair for athletes to have wait to reach the NFL to be adequately compensated for their athleticism. What if a player suffers a career ending injury before he is eligible for the NFL? Such a player would never have the opportunity to be adequately compensated for his athletic ability.  It is for this reason that the conversation should be focused on college athletes rights to receive adequate compensation in college.

Yes, an injured player may have a degree.  It is also true that the degree could yield high earnings for the player in the future. However, the injured player would still have missed the opportunity to be adequately compensated for his athleticism in college.  Meanwhile, his coach made millions in games that the injured player’s labor largely contributed to.

There is a lot of money in Division 1 college football.  This is evident from the coaches salaries.  More of that money should be funneled down to the labor force who makes it all possible.  It would be nice if Lawerence had the ability to opt for the NFL. However, it would be better if he could receive more for the fruits of his labor while in college. At the very least, Lawerence and other similarly situated athletes should be allowed to profit off of their own name, image, and likeness.  Therefore, the conversation should be about Lawerence’s ability to receive his worth while in college instead of his ability to go to the NFL.

Update: Alston v. NCAA: Amateurism on Trial for Violating Anti-Trust Law

Amateurism

The NCAA will stop at nothing to preserve its beloved “amateurism.”  This article is an update to the initial details of the Alston v. NCAA case detailed on the Unafraid Show. The NCAA demonstrated this last week with the parade of witnesses they called to defend their bedrock principle of “amateurism” in the Alston v. NCAA trial.  In Alston, former college athletes sued the NCAA to have the cap limiting athletic scholarships to cost-of-attendance removed.  The Plaintiffs argue that the cap is a violation of federal antitrust laws.  Each witness offered justifications in support of the NCAA’s assertion that the cap is necessary to protect “amateurism” and to help “student-athletes” become apart of the greater campus community.

There was a recurring theme amongst the NCAA’s witnesses.  Almost every witness argued that removing the cap would have a detrimental effect on college athletics.  However, many of the witnesses failed to offer any hard evidence of that assertion.  They relied on their opinions, which are not sufficient in this antitrust case.  The issue of whether removing the cap would have a detrimental effect on college athletics is the main issue in the case. Therefore, arguments for and against must be supported by expert testimony and/or quantitative data.

NCAA Witnesses in Support of “Amateurism”

The NCAA called several witnesses who offered complex testimony that addressed a variety of issues.  The following are highlights from a few of the testimonies.

Rebecca Blank’s Testimony

First, the NCAA called Rebecca Blank, the Chancellor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison (Wisconsin).  Her testimony was fascinating as it will likely do more harm than good to the NCAA.  While Blank testified that “student-athletes” should not be paid, she also criticized how much coaches are paid.   She stated that it was “unfortunate” that the cap on coaches salaries’ was removed and asserted that the high salaries make the programs look bad.  This assertion made Blank appear to not fully support the NCAA’s and Power 5 conferences’ model.

Relatedly, Blank testified that if “student-athletes” were paid, Wisconsin would reconsider its participation in college athletics. Wisconsin issued a statement the very next day that completely undermined Blank’s testimony. The statement made it clear that Wisconsin has no plans to stop offering college athletics.  Blank’s testimony and Wisconsin’s response makes the NCAA and the Power 5 conferences look disjointed. Furthermore, Blank failed to offer any quantitative evidence to support her assertion that loosening the cap would negatively affect college athletics.

Michael Aresco’s and Eugene Smith’s Testimonies

Similarly, American Athletic Commissioner Michael Aresco testified that the rules capping scholarships are necessary to help smaller conferences like his compete.  He argued that the cap ensures that the “big” schools cannot recruit all of the talents.  This argument is flawed.  Even with the cap, it is generally the same teams in the football bowl games, in the college football playoffs, and in the later rounds of the March Madness Tournament. While Aresco’s testimony is more helpful than Blank’s, he too failed to offer any quantitative evidence in support of his claim that loosening the cap would negatively affect college athletics.

Accordingly, the athletic director at Ohio State University Eugene Smith testified.  His testimony was generally helpful to the NCAA.  He pointed out that not all college athletes will play professionally and that they need to be prepared for that reality.  Smith acknowledged if college athletes were paid there would still be fans, although there may be less.   He also asserted that donors might be less inclined to donate.

What is Next in Alston

On Monday and Tuesday of this week, each party presented the rest of their witnesses.  The trial ended on September 25.  Each party will submit a written closing argument to the judge.  The judge will then take some time to review and then issue a ruling.  After the ruling is issued the parties will have the option to appeal to the federal appeals court in the 9th circuit.  This case could possibly reach the United States Supreme Court.  Alston v. NCAA is extremely significant to college athletics.  If the plaintiffs succeed, it could completely change the world of college athletics.

Alston v. NCAA: Amateurism on Trial for Violating Anti-Trust Law

Amateurism -Alston vs NCAA

College Athletes vs NCAA – Amateurism is on trial again!  On Tuesday, September 4, the trial for what has become known as Alston v. NCAA commenced in federal district court in Oakland, California. Judge Claudia Wilken is presiding.  She also presided over the O’Bannon case in which the NCAA lost. Per O’Bannon, the NCAA can not use the images of its former student-athletes for commercial purposes after graduation without compensation.  Alston could completely change the landscape of the billion dollar industry of college athletics, which is comprised of television and sponsorship deals.

The NCAA and the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) conferences are faced with defending their beloved principle of amateurism. The plaintiffs’ claim that the rules capping scholarships at grants-in-aid and cost-of-attendance violate federal antitrust laws.  The O’Bannon case already determined that the NCAA is subject to federal antitrust laws. So, the NCAA is required to defend against related claims.

College Athletes’ Argument 

The plaintiffs are at the cusp of destroying the charade of amateurism by seeking to remove the NCAA’s scholarship cap.  The cap prevents “student-athletes” from receiving scholarship money above the cost-of-attendance.  A cost-of-attendance scholarship provides student-athletes with an opportunity to get an education without paying. However, it is often not enough to cover many of the athletes’ general living expenses such as food and clothing.

NCAA’s Argument

The NCAA argues that the rules capping scholarships do not violate federal antitrust laws because they are essential to protecting amateurism. They state that the rules are necessary to help “student-athletes” fully integrate themselves into the campus community. They also argue that eliminating amateurism rules will damage college athletics.

The NCAA contends that if student-athletes are allowed more than a cost-of-attendance scholarship, they will cease to be “amateurs” and fans will lose interest. They also state that the scholarship cap helps student-athletes integrate into campus communities. However, the NCAA’s integration argument provides no evidence that the presence of a scholarship cap helps student-athletes.  “Integration” is more likely affected by the major time commitment that each sport requires coupled with the time mandated for actual coursework.  It is highly unlikely that a scholarship cap does anything to alleviate the time management burden each “student-athlete” is faced with in balancing their sport with academics.

Given the flaws in the NCAA’s arguments, it appears that the plaintiffs may have a viable shot at having the cap removed. The plaintiffs counter this argument by noting that the individual conferences will have the choice to adopt their own individual policies regarding compensation caps.  They also argue that college athletics will benefit from changes to amateurism.

The Outcome Could Change College Athletics 

The outcome of this case could completely change the future of college athletics.  If the plaintiffs are successful, the world of college recruiting would completely change. The college recruitment market would essentially be open for conferences and colleges to make their own decisions on how much scholarship money to award student-athletes.

This type of open market would provide the freedom for student-athletes to receive more of the value that they provide to the colleges they attend. Although many student-athletes receive a cost-of-attendance scholarship that provides them with the opportunity to get a “free” education, colleges make millions off the backs of student-athletes each year.  Most of the money is dispersed to coaches, staff, and is used to build lavish athletic facilities.  The current structure is simply not fair to the student-athletes, and as such, they have a lot to gain from the outcome of this case.  If the Plaintiffs are successful, “student-athletes” will be in a better position because they will receive more of the value that they bring to their respective schools.