Do you remember Reggie Bush? Yes, the blazing-fast, hurdling into the endzone from the five-yard line, Heisman Trophy winning Reggie Bush. To the sports fan, this question is rhetorical, but Bush’s legacy as a college athlete has never been remembered for his uncanny ability to run the football at USC, but rather as the centerpiece of the biggest scandal in the history of college football. In an investigation that costed USC its 2004 National Championship trophy and Bush’s 2005 Heisman trophy, it was uncovered that Bush received compensation for his talents on the football program, but instead of criticism being accumulated towards Bush, the aftermath raised the question of whether or not athletes should be compensated for their services to the university. In the eyes of the traditionalist, athletic scholarships have been compensation enough for the students, but after a Forbes report that the University of Alabama makes a whopping 45 million dollars from their football program, some questions have been raised about the future of college sports.
All Players United was a movement backed by the National College Players Association that began in 2013 with the goal to promote player compensation and better health benefits for athletes before the NCAA reform. It was in that year that the sports world first took notice to the idea of player compensation thanks to former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon. O’Bannon won a lawsuit that he filed on behalf of former college athletes in which he sued NCAA and Electronic Arts for using player likeness in former EA video games without compensation. At the end of the lawsuit, O’Bannon walked away with a $40 million settlement which lead to a $4,000 payout to as many as 100,000 former athletes featured in the video games. The following football season turned into a hellstorm between the NCAA and it’s athletes. Players wore “A.P.U” handwritten on their wristbands and towels, and the media took notice. Soon, the players movement became more important than the play itself. In the normally quiet world of college football, controversy and protest flooded the league.
The 2013 NCAA reform came and went, but change for the players never came. The NCAA ruled that players can be paid for their likeness after their playing days, but cannot be compensated while they are still enrolled. The decision deflated the efforts of the temporary union, but hopes of change still exist today. In a recent poll done by ABC News and the Washington Post, the general public is still against player compensation as 64 percent believes that academic scholarship is enough, yet some still have hope that change will come sooner rather than later. Murmurs of player compensation has started up again, and this time, the media is behind it. Multiple reports from ESPN, Huffington Post, and NBC News among others have argued for the players and they have the arguments to back it up. The biggest problem that the NCAA has had with it’s players is bribery from agents or coaches. Reggie Bush has been the most prominent case, and other big name athletes have gotten their name caught up in accusations such as Cam Newton, O.J. Mayo, and Dez Bryant. Their has always been a gray area for players accepting money and player compensation seemed like a respectable option. What makes the situation so shady is that the players understand their worth. In a Business Insider article earlier this year, it was reported that the average Division I college basketball player is worth more than $170,000, with players at bigger schools such as Kansas or Louisville being worth more than one million dollars. This becomes a huge problem in the eyes of the student-athlete, and is much of the reason why the “One-and-Done” phenomenon has been so prominent in college basketball. The downfall of that statistic is that it feeds into the argument of the opposing, more traditional side of the argument that players should not be paid. With the age college players ranging from ages 18-22, the fear is that player compensation will lead to irresponsible spending. The players will oppose that statement, but it is hard to argue, although some are trying to come up with a compromise. Former UConn basketball star Shabazz Napier has been one of the greatest advocates for All Players United just by sharing his personal experiences as a scholarship athlete. When asked about his financial situation in college, Napier stated:
“We do have hungry nights that we don’t have enough money to get food in. Sometimes money is needed. I don’t think you should stretch it out to hundreds of thousands of dollars for playing, because a lot of times guys don’t know how to handle themselves with money. I feel like a student athlete. Sometimes, there’s hungry nights where I’m not able to eat, but I still gotta play up to my capabilities.”
Napier provided an interesting perspective to the situation because the beliefs of the general public is that players would be paid similarly to professional athletes, but what Napier was trying to convey is that he believes athletes deserve at least enough to live an everyday life just as every other college student. SB Nation also reported that, in turn, this will reduce the temptation for any type of corruption by accepting money from outside sources. The hope for supporters is that with player compensation, it will also entice players to stay in school. Since the One-and-Done rule has been implemented, graduation rates have gone down drastically. In a 2009 New York Times report, only three years after the NCAA rule was implemented, the graduation rate in the NBA dropped all the way down to 21 percent. The goal is that if the students are in stable financial standing, they will not only stay in school longer, but hopefully stay long enough to leave with a college degree.
Although there is growing support for player compensation, the traditional view still rules as majority of people still believe that student-athletes are deserving of only what they already have in a full athletic scholarship. As put in a 2013 Forbes article, athletes are already paid up to $125,000 in tuition and housing. Besides that, there are also some solid arguments for not paying college athletes. One argument that highly opposes one made by All Players United and its supporters is that athletes, more specifically the ones with pro-level talent, will put forth less effort towards their academics, although this idea has been highly criticized due to the fact that eligibility rules would still apply. Another reason that is not admitted to by NCAA officials but still recognized by media is that the students would receive more control of the NCAA if they were to receive compensation. What is feared is that it would lead to a more professional-like atmosphere between the league and the players where student-athletes would then have the control to take more powerful action against the NCAA such and striking and boycotting games, a move that would be costly to the NCAA. Along with that idea, if players did get paid, there would inevitably be the discussion of how much players would get paid and if they would be paid the same amount. For example, a Heisman-trophy caliber player would not want to be paid the same amount as a Division-III player. A lot of the arguments behind not paying players revolves around the same premise: the avoidance of conflict.
Undoubtedly, the issue involving player compensation will only grow as time goes on. Since 2001 when surveys about paying college athletes was first recorded, support for the players has grown tremendously, both within the general public and college representatives such as coaches and professors. It is an issue that will more than likely be addressed within the next decade, and it will be interesting to see how it unravels.
