For decades, the National College Athletic Association has preserved the amateur status of student-athletes by banning their ability to name, image, or similarity (NIL). As a former Level I compliance coordinator, I often feel that NCAA’s amateur policies have gone too far, which gives student-athletes the right to make money like other college students, such as through their own sports camps.
But now, the court received a $2.8 billion athlete compensation settlement in June, putting the NCAA’s amateur concept on its head, which will be shared by student-athletes who previously missed the opportunity to make money from zero change. This historic deal between the I Division Athletes, NCAA and the Level I Power 5 conference (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC) also makes revenue sharing with current student-athletes a reality.
Athletes of the top soccer and basketball program may celebrate this financial victory, which allows institutions to share up to $20.5 million in victory each year with student-athletes – media, tickets, offers and donations.
But many of the coaches who recruit them – and professors like me, who teach them – believe that paying for the athletic ability of college athletes will hurt college sports. That’s because doing so will make college athletes specialized, which will hurt other students and sports, and will undermine the academic mission of the institution.
While some student-athletes will benefit from the new system, most will not. Many universities will use the 75-15-5-5 model, which means 75% of revenue will be distributed to football, 15% for men’s basketball, 5% for women’s basketball, and all other sports.
Paid players will also change the spirit of college sports. Although the concept of amateurism has always been a joke in college track and field, especially in income-generating sports, the payment system will further move the focus from educational and business goals to business goals. As one large football coach described to me: “Once you start paying, they become theirs in some ways [university’s] employee. This is no longer amateurism. ”
There is already a separation between student-athletes and non-athletes on many campuses, and some believe this is due to the perceived privilege of student-athletes. According to one of the women’s basketball coaches I spoke with, implementing revenue sharing only adds to this disagreement. Student-athletes who receive five or six figure salaries to play for their institutions will be motivated to spend more time on their sports, reducing time participating in the campus community and further diluting the university’s purpose as an incubator for personal and knowledge growth.
It is also possible that colleges will narrow their staff and “avoid upgrading facilities to fund revenue share,” one coach told me, for example, delays in improving gyms or sports fields. In some institutions, funding revenue sharing programs will undoubtedly lead to Olympic and non-competitive sports cuts, such as swimming and track and field.
More importantly, it is unclear how the income sharing program will affect gender equality, as income distribution may not count as financial aid under Title IX. Title IX has provided equal opportunities for female student-athletes since 1972, including proportional funding for their college athletic programs. If the university’s zero payment is not subject to Chapter IX scrutiny, the sports department will be allowed to direct all revenue generated by media rights, tickets and donations to achieve its soccer and men’s basketball program. As one of my women’s basketball coaches said to me, “We are expanding the gap between male and female athletes.”
To be sure, there is something wrong with the university sports system. As scholars have pointed out, it leverages student-athletes’ athletic talent, while coaches and athletic leaders gain benefits. But creating professional athletes in educational institutions is not the answer.
Instead, I recommend that all student-athletes participate in collective bargaining before they can sign employment-oriented contracts to waive their zero rights in exchange for a share of income.
Collective bargaining will ensure that student-athletes’ institutions ensure their academic success, overall development and well-being. These may include time to get approved from the sport to participate in helpful, high-impact practical and undergraduate research, as well as academic support to help them stand out in their own chosen program rather than effectively choosing their sport schedule.
The graduation rate of student-athletes – especially the basketball players in black male soccer and the highest racing institutions – is frustrating. A 2018 study by Shaun R. Harper found that of 65 institutions, the institution constituted the Power 5 conference, with only 55.2% of black male athletes graduating within six years, a figure lower than all student-athletes (69.3%), all black undergraduates (60.1%) and all students (76.3%). Under collective bargaining, student-athletes can retain their own scholarships, regardless of the qualifications of injury or exhaustion, to help complete their degree. This financial support will encourage athletes to stay in college after their athletic careers are over.
They can also negotiate better mental health support consistent with NCAA’s best practices, including annual mental health screening and access to culturally inclusive mental health providers who work with athletes. The coach will learn to identify critical mental health symptoms. As a former women’s basketball coach told me, she didn’t have the “right language” to help her athletes.
Currently, NCAA’s post-defense injury insurance provides only two years of health care after an injury. Collective negotiations can provide long-term health care and disability insurance for people injured during college. This is important because footballers risk their lives every day to make money for their institutions – every 2.6 years of game opportunities increase the chances of chronic traumatic encephalopathy and may significantly increase the chances of Parkinson’s disease relative to other non-playing football players.
As one football coach mentioned to me, it might be too late to put the well-known elves back into the bottle when paying, but it is not too late for universities to prioritize their academic tasks in their athletic programs, taking care of the well-being of students and restoring the college sports spirit.
