The contentious issue of remuneration for college athletes continues to draw the attention of stakeholders with regard to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) stipulation that athletes should not receive compensation beyond their full college sponsorship benefits. The problem is further compounded by the unprecedented increase in revenues due to television ratings and media deals (Sanderson & Siegfried, 2015). The popularity of college football and basketball has soared in recent years, lifting some of the players and coaches to celebrity status. Compensation packages for some of the celebrity coaches, some peaking as high as 9 million dollars, does little to quell the scrutiny minted on these sports. The rigidity of NCAA guidelines and regulation with regard to the characterization of these college athletes as amateurs fails to acknowledge the transformation that is evident in these sports. Certainly, the increased revenues in these intercollegiate competitions necessitate a different approach to the issue of compensation for the athletes involved.
Expectedly, there has been unease from athlete quarters over the level of compensation that they receive for their efforts in the college competitions. The business model of the intercollegiate sports is strictly controlled by the NCAA where the previous maximum compensation was limited to tuition, books, room, and fees in for of sports scholarships (Sanderson & Siegfried, 2015). Sustained pressure over these archaic restrictions forced the NCAA to review its policies and allow more financial aid to players. The decision was however viewed as a knee-jerk reaction to prevent further advocation for policy changes that will undermine the authority of the NCAA. Player unease over their compensation packages mainly emanates from the astronomic salaries some of the coaches receive and the availability of millions gained from sponsorship deals.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The pressures and tight schedule demands of the sports is ill-prepared students for success in their studies. Considering that most of the colleges routinely admit students based on their athletic prowess as opposed to academic potential, the sports demand sets them up for academic failure (Johnson & Acquaviva, 2012). Coaches characteristically exploit the players’ athletic prowess for the team and individual success. After their athletic eligibility is done, the players stand a far-reduced chance of success of success in their studies. Provided the proven evidence that some of the elite athletes receive undisclosed financial benefits due to the NCAA regulations, policy change is long overdue (Johnson & Acquaviva, 2012). Several legal suits pitting the NCAA against athletes and teams have left the NCAA with the shorter end of the stick. Implying that the association is treading a dangerous legal ground with regards to its regulations. Typically, the NCAA rakes in millions of dollars through the intercollegiate sports while most of the athletes barely have nothing to show for their efforts.
The impetus for change is the risk that the NCAA places itself in through its rigid policies. The business model of intercollegiate sports serves to benefits athletes and sports managers while maligning most of the athletes. The NCAA management decision to allow five college conferences to undertake their sporting activities under a different set of rules in a step in the right direction (Sanderson & Siegfried, 2015). Further policy changes that allowed unlimited meals to athletes are plausible. However, even more, significant changes are required to improve the welfare of college athletes while preparing them to cash in on professional contracts later.
References
Johnson, D. A., & Acquaviva, J. (2012). Point/Counterpoint: Paying College Athletes. Sports Journal , 15 .
Sanderson, A. R., & Siegfried, J. J. (2015). The case for paying college athletes. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 29 (1), 115-38.
