NCAA

A Shift in the Discussion Regarding the Payment of Student Athletes

(Source) A major issue that has been debated is whether student athletes should be allowed to profit off the use of their names, images, and likenesses. There are several reasons given in support for both sides. Some rationales supporting the payment of student athletes include college athletes expenditure of time towards their sport—an average of 43.3 hours per week, college athletes struggle to make ends meet, paying students would only make the sport more competitive, the money earned from athletics is not automatically reinvested in education and research, the college sports apparel market capitalizes specifically on these players, payment would help athletes leave school with a degree and little debt, and the NCAA is an $11 billion industry which should be able to afford paying people on all levels, including the players..   Common arguments against the payment of student athletes encompass a lack of college athletic programs to  afford to pay athletes, elite college athletes receive athletic scholarships which serves as a form of compensation, there is no fair way to pay college athletes, students are not professionals, paying student athletes will cause cuts elsewhere, and paying college athletes will ruin college sports.   One of the major arguments [read more]

Christie v. NCAA and the Implications of Legal Sports Betting

In 1992, Congress passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PAPSA”), prohibiting states from authorizing, licensing, regulating, and controlling sports betting. The Act grandfathered in states that had previously legalized sports betting – Nevada, Oregon, and Delaware – and offered an exemption to New Jersey if they enacted legislation within a year. The state failed to do so, and continued to prohibit sports betting within its borders. In 2010, the state changed course and initiated a referendum among its voters asking whether sports betting should be legalized in the state. The referendum was approved by a wide margin. In response, the Legislature passed the Sports Wagering Act in 2012, which legalized sports betting in private casinos and racetracks across the state. The NCAA, NFL, NHL, and MLB (“NCAA”) sued the Governor of New Jersey and various state officials (Christie I), alleging that the Act violated PAPSA. The state admitted that the Sports Wagering Act violated PAPSA, but argued that PAPSA was unconstitutional because it violated the anti-commandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment. The doctrine prohibits the federal government from requiring states or state officials to adopt or enforce federal law. The NCAA argued that PAPSA did not require the [read more]

It’s Time to Pay the Student-Athletes

It seems as if every year a new NCAA scandal emerges. This year, an FBI investigation revealed corruption, bribery, and fraud between assistant coaches, universities, investment firms, and Adidas affiliates. The biggest school involved is the University of Louisville, which is a college basketball powerhouse. In the complaint of the criminal case, U.S. v. James Gatto, it is alleged that James Gatto (Adidas’ global sports marketing director for basketball), Merl Code (a former NCAA basketball player now associated with Adidas), and Munish Sood (the founder of investment services firm Princeton Capital) paid $100,000 to a high school recruit to commit to Louisville. The case also alleges that Sood would manage the player’s money and the player would sign with Adidas when he entered the NBA. The investigation suggests that Rick Pitino was involved in this corruption, and as a result, Pitino was fired on October 16, 2017. Under the current NCAA model, student-athletes are considered amateurs and cannot be paid. It is a model that emphasizes the “spirit of the game”, and pays student-athletes with a value of an education. Education is extremely important; however, its value is minuscule compared to how much money these top college football and basketball programs [read more]