On September 30, 2019, California established a law making it the first state to allow college athletes to receive money for their work. This law alarmed the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA). According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, NCAA officials called this law “harmful,” “unconstitutional,” and an “existential threat” to college sports.
NCAA officials gathered in Georgia on October 29th, 2019, to discuss the matter and decide on a course of action after 20 other states considered adding laws that resembled California’s. After debating the matter, they concluded that each division could establish rules for paying college athletes. Soon after, many states began allowing athletes to earn money for their sport.
These new policies would go into effect on July 1st, 2021, though the NCAA wanted to eliminate these laws because college was supposed to be for amateurs. The NCAA believed this would hurt the league far more than it would help, so it decided to take action.
The NCAA took this issue to the Supreme Court and lost. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the NCAA cannot restrict monetary benefits players may get from their likeness. On June 30th, 2021, the day before many states’ new NIL (Names, Image, Likeness) laws would come into effect, the NCAA finally admitted defeat.
There was nothing the NCAA could do to stop college athletes from making money. July 1, 2021, came around, and it took a little while for college athletes to sign endorsements and make money.
No matter what people think about college athletes getting paid, these new provisions have benefits. There were many concerns surrounding athletes’ income previously, such as the possibility that only athletes participating in certain sports would receive benefits.
However, according to ESPN, this has not been the case. In his article about the benefits of NIL, ESPN’s college basketball analyst Jay Bilas said, “ While there is no way to have NIL opportunities evenly apportioned among all athletes and all sports, it is clear that there have been far more athletes taking advantage of NIL than predicted by its early critics,” which shows that athletes are getting what they deserve, regardless of the sport.
Another concern was whether it would affect the student’s education. Critics believed they would no longer be student-athletes and would become athlete students. To be allowed to compete in college sports, you must maintain a 2.3+ GPA to play D1 and 2.2+ to play D2.
Another rule states that “the NCAA values amateurism, and to be eligible, student-athletes must complete an amateurism certification in their Eligibility Center account.” According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, being an amateur is “one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession.” It becomes a profession if you receive payment, an issue of concern.
Montgomery County Senior citizen and college graduate John Loveday states, “No. If they are paid for performance, they are professionals.”
Lastly, one of the most significant effects of paying student-athletes is that it makes them willing to stay in school longer and not just opt to play in the pro as soon as they get to college. Student-athletes, especially in basketball, were transitioning into pro leagues after starting college because of the financial appeal.
Colleges were handing out scholarships to athletes who weren’t using them when they could have given them to others gifted in academics. According to Jay Bilas, “players have the option to continue their education and earn money, and many have chosen to do so.” This policy is beneficial for the colleges because they can make more money and for students because they get a better education. Whether you support the NIL or not, it seems it’ll be sticking around for a while.
While laws allowing athletes to be paid for their image have been allowed in the sport, pay-for-play continues to remain pending in the NCAA. Pay-for-play is a system in which you are paid in the form of a salary, unlike with NIL, where money comes through endorsements.
Recently, pay for play has resurfaced, and serious debate is going on as to whether college athletes deserve pay. Considering the number of hours athletes dedicate to honing their craft, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has entertained the idea of student-athletes receiving a salary.
NLRB employees in Chicago found that Northwestern University athletes spend 1,750 hours a year on football. If you worked eight hours a day, five days a week, fifty-two weeks a year, you would work 2080 hours a year. These athletes work almost the same amount of time as regular workers while also attending school. Due to this, the NLRB has been discussing the need for players to have a salary.
The NCAA is opposed to paying players as it would hurt them financially. Colleges would be forced to pay players on top of their scholarships. Colleges have many sports teams, and paying athletes for every single one of them would be extremely tough.
However, some systems have come into effect for pay-to-play, such as the College Athlete Protection Act. The bill establishes football and men’s basketball players in California to be paid up to 25,000 dollars a year while providing money for college sports injuries. Others, like the Duke model created by David Grenardo, allow players to be paid based on performance and minutes played.
Issues have arisen about whether colleges should continue handing out scholarships if they are going to pay athletes a salary. John Loveday says, “I think the scholarship is their salary, and they don’t need more. In reality, other students pay higher tuition to support the scholarships. Somebody gotta pay their tuition, right? The scholarship method has worked for decades. Why change it?”
Article Written by Jack Loveday of Silgo Middle School
Photo Courtesy of Flickr