We're in the midst of March Madness, and it's not just everyone's brackets that are busted. Since 2021, any fan can attest to college sports being flipped on its head, thanks to a landmark court case allowing student-athletes to profit off their name, image and likeness (NIL).The court case, NCAA v. Alston, broke open the National Collegiate Athletic Association's decades-long policy that imposed amateurship on college players, insisting that student-athletes were students first and could not be compensated, in any way, like a professional athlete would.But now, student-athletes are able to profit off the athlete part. For example, the University of Texas' Arch Manning – nephew of famed former NFL quarterbacks Peyton Manning and Eli Manning – has agreed to NIL deals worth over $3 million, The New York Times reported last summer.The Chattanooga Times supports NIL for the long-deserved financial autonomy it gives to players. But compensation from name, image and likeness isn't enough.NCAA athletes – who are essentially employees for an industry that brings in annual revenues in the billions – should be paid directly, as any other worker would, by what is in effect their employer, the university or school they play for.Any arguments in opposition to this are, to put it bluntly, tired and arbitrary. The NCAA, while it is an educational entity, has also become what is essentially a semi-professional league, one that athletes must play under if they want a future in professional sports.It's time that college athletes are paid for the entertainment value they provide to schools and the fans. Here's why arguments otherwise don't hold any water. Let's start with perhaps the most common argument against student-athlete compensation.Any time the topic of college athlete compensation comes up, one question in particular is often asked: Aren't student-athletes compensated via scholarships?While it is true that many student-athletes – especially top talent within basketball and football – do receive scholarships, this isn't an argument anyone would take seriously in any other employer-employee context.Imagine an employer in Chattanooga, instead of offering direct compensation, instead paid for their employees' UTC tuition. Obviously, this would be illegal, but the argument on its face is also silly. Of course, an employer should pay its employees. The same is true for student-athletes.But still, many will argue that these players are, to emphasize, students. Shouldn't they focus on school instead of sports? Well, compensation actually gives college players the financial freedom to achieve academic success.Look at Armando Bacot, former forward for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's basketball team. As reported by The New York Times, NIL gave Bacot, an NBA-caliber player, an incentive structure that allowed him to stay in school and finish his master's degree in business.In fact, it was the time before NIL – college basketball's one-and-done era – that incentivized players to ignore academics and focus on getting to the NBA, where they could actually make money, as soon as possible.But let's go over a new popular argument that's been taking shape in recent years. Fans, ad nauseam, will often say that NIL is ruining college sports, that the David v. Goliath stories are over, that NIL is killing the Davids because athletes are more incentivized to go to more prominent schools like Alabama and UNC, where they stand to earn more from NIL.And sure, maybe this is true to some extent. After all, we're not seeing nearly the amount of upsets – the madness – in the NCAA tournament in recent years as we typically would.But it doesn't matter. Even if NIL or direct compensation were to change aspects of the game that fans enjoy – which I, the editor of this page, would count myself among – a system that exploits players for profit isn't one that should be maintained, regardless of its impact on the sport.And all of this isn't just our opinion. It's increasingly been the opinion of federal courts, even among the right-wing judges on the U.S. Supreme Court, which unanimously ruled in favor of NIL in 2021.Even Trump-appointed Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, said that antitrust laws "should not be a cover for exploitation of the student athletes."This is the reason the NCAA has been so opposed to NIL. It's because if you allow college athletes to earn money from their name, image and likeness, it breaks down that exploitation model, opening the door for direct compensation.And that's exactly what's happening. In another federal court case, House v. NCAA, the athletic association settled for $2.75 billion, agreeing to allow schools to distribute up to $20 million to Division I athletes who have played since 2016. The settlement is waiting for court approval.But the crux of all of this is the legal concept of amateurship, that college players should not be paid because they are not professionals. The NCAA has relied upon this for decades to profit off unpaid labor.More and more, this arbitrary, made-up concept is falling apart. It is becoming increasingly more obvious that the NCAA, in effect, is a professional league, one that rakes in billions of dollars each year.It's a billion-dollar industry that doesn't pay a vast majority of its employees, the players that fans are there to see compete. It's time for this exploitative system to end. It's time for the NCAA and its member schools, like any other employer, to pay its employees.

But still, many will argue that these players are, to emphasize, students. Shouldn’t they focus on school instead of sports? Well, compensation actually gives college players the financial freedom to achieve academic success.This is the reason the NCAA has been so opposed to NIL. It’s because if you allow college athletes to earn money from […]

But still, many will argue that these players are, to emphasize, students. Shouldn’t they focus on school instead of sports? Well, compensation actually gives college players the financial freedom to achieve academic success.This is the reason the NCAA has been so opposed to NIL. It’s because if you allow college athletes to earn money from their name, image and likeness, it breaks down that exploitation model, opening the door for direct compensation.More and more, this arbitrary, made-up concept is falling apart. It is becoming increasingly more obvious that the NCAA, in effect, is a professional league, one that rakes in billions of dollars each year.Imagine an employer in Chattanooga, instead of offering direct compensation, instead paid for their employees’ UTC tuition. Obviously, this would be illegal, but the argument on its face is also silly. Of course, an employer should pay its employees. The same is true for student-athletes.But let’s go over a new popular argument that’s been taking shape in recent years. Fans, ad nauseam, will often say that NIL is ruining college sports, that the David v. Goliath stories are over, that NIL is killing the Davids because athletes are more incentivized to go to more prominent schools like Alabama and UNC, where they stand to earn more from NIL.But the crux of all of this is the legal concept of amateurship, that college players should not be paid because they are not professionals. The NCAA has relied upon this for decades to profit off unpaid labor.The court case, NCAA v. Alston, broke open the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s decades-long policy that imposed amateurship on college players, insisting that student-athletes were students first and could not be compensated, in any way, like a professional athlete would.But now, student-athletes are able to profit off the athlete part. For example, the University of Texas’ Arch Manning – nephew of famed former NFL quarterbacks Peyton Manning and Eli Manning – has agreed to NIL deals worth over million, The New York Times reported last summer.In fact, it was the time before NIL – college basketball’s one-and-done era – that incentivized players to ignore academics and focus on getting to the NBA, where they could actually make money, as soon as possible.It’s a billion-dollar industry that doesn’t pay a vast majority of its employees, the players that fans are there to see compete. It’s time for this exploitative system to end. It’s time for the NCAA and its member schools, like any other employer, to pay its employees.NCAA athletes – who are essentially employees for an industry that brings in annual revenues in the billions – should be paid directly, as any other worker would, by what is in effect their employer, the university or school they play for.Any arguments in opposition to this are, to put it bluntly, tired and arbitrary. The NCAA, while it is an educational entity, has also become what is essentially a semi-professional league, one that athletes must play under if they want a future in professional sports.Any time the topic of college athlete compensation comes up, one question in particular is often asked: Aren’t student-athletes compensated via scholarships?And that’s exactly what’s happening. In another federal court case, House v. NCAA, the athletic association settled for .75 billion, agreeing to allow schools to distribute up to million to Division I athletes who have played since 2016. The settlement is waiting for court approval.While it is true that many student-athletes – especially top talent within basketball and football – do receive scholarships, this isn’t an argument anyone would take seriously in any other employer-employee context.The Chattanooga Times supports NIL for the long-deserved financial autonomy it gives to players. But compensation from name, image and likeness isn’t enough.And sure, maybe this is true to some extent. After all, we’re not seeing nearly the amount of upsets – the madness – in the NCAA tournament in recent years as we typically would.And all of this isn’t just our opinion. It’s increasingly been the opinion of federal courts, even among the right-wing judges on the U.S. Supreme Court, which unanimously ruled in favor of NIL in 2021.Look at Armando Bacot, former forward for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s basketball team. As reported by The New York Times, NIL gave Bacot, an NBA-caliber player, an incentive structure that allowed him to stay in school and finish his master’s degree in business.Even Trump-appointed Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, said that antitrust laws “should not be a cover for exploitation of the student athletes.”We’re in the midst of March Madness, and it’s not just everyone’s brackets that are busted. Since 2021, any fan can attest to college sports being flipped on its head, thanks to a landmark court case allowing student-athletes to profit off their name, image and likeness (NIL).It’s time that college athletes are paid for the entertainment value they provide to schools and the fans. Here’s why arguments otherwise don’t hold any water. Let’s start with perhaps the most common argument against student-athlete compensation.But it doesn’t matter. Even if NIL or direct compensation were to change aspects of the game that fans enjoy – which I, the editor of this page, would count myself among – a system that exploits players for profit isn’t one that should be maintained, regardless of its impact on the sport.

Opinion

Leave a Reply Cancel reply