Yes, that's pretty dramatic. Too dramatic--but going over the top seems to be one of the only ways to get and keep people's attention. Now, to state the case.
First to review--there's a pending court case known as the "Ed O'Bannon Case", which is a class action lawsuit against that basically challenges the NCAA's limitation on what men's basketball and football players can receive for their services to the university as revenue producing athletes. Second, there's the ruling earlier this year that Northwestern University football players can form a union, which if the players do, they'll be recognized as university employees. Both cases could blow up the entire intercollegiate sports landscape. Yes--***the entire*** landscape, and not for the better.
Let's first address paying players more than their respective scholarships, room & board, books, and per diem. Right now, the O'Bannon case deals only with football and men's basketball players. This is impractical simply because **which ones** are you going to pay? How much are you going to pay them? Are you going to pay just the stars--the guys who truly generate the revenue stream--or are you also going to pay the 3rd-string offensive lineman, et al? This is where the attitude of "show me the money" rears its ugly personna, because everybody wants to get paid. It doesn't stop there. This is such a slippery slope that many other Pandora's Box questions must be answered on the way down that slippery slope into the Tar Pits. Among them: what about athletes in non-revenue producing sports? What about at universities where women's basketball is a revenue stream, or a a player/players are popular enough that they generate revenue for the university? Shouldn't that be a "pay for play" scenario as well? And, since you're talking about women's sports, you can bet the Title IX folks will chime in on the equal opportunity issue. Those are just for starters. All of these challenges must be met before "pay for play" can be practical. Oh, and don't think the elite academic students--you know, the ones the universities recruit to come there to pad their academic and research prowess???!!!-- don't you think they're smart enough to get in on the cash capade? What about the arts/performance stars who are recruited as well? Shouldn't they get paid a portion for their contribution to the university's success/reputation? Where does it end? They're hard-but-fair questions.
Second, a look-see at an even uglier scenario which is the Northwestern union thing. The prima facie (at first look) questions cut this thing to pieces. First, if these scholarship athletes become university employees, don't they become subject to the same rules and regulations of any university employed from the groundskeeper to the university president? Do they fill out time cards? Are they paid hourly or on a salary? Do they pay taxes on their scholarships? Can they get fired for non-performance of duties--say, for example, being chronically late (for team meetings, study hall, the mess hall, etc... )? Since they'll have to go through the National Labor Relations Board, won't they need to have a collective bargaining agreement? Suppose there's an impasse between the players' union and the school--if they choose to strike, do they not get to go to class? If they don't go to class, will they get flunked or incompleted? Will they then lose their scholarship for non-compliance on the academic end? If the university locks them out, same questions remain. Those are just for starters. All this will have to be legislated to make this practical.
On the other side, it's become obvious the collegiate sports landscape needs serious reform. It is practical to see that some athletes do generate not only some income, but some serious PR for their respective institutions, which added value on top of the revenue producing athlete/athletes. I understand that. I'm not one to offer challenges without at least a stab at a solution. So here goes.
For the revenue producing athlete, the university shall establish an escrow fund, where proceeds (let's just say 51% for the university, 49% for the athlete) from the athlete's likeness is deposited and kept, earning interest, for the entirety of the athlete's service to the university. The athlete can then, after leaving the university, withdraw the proceeds under the following conditions: 1) To complete his/her degree, and upon completion of the degree the athlete can then withdraw what's left. Once he/she completes the degree, he/she can either withdraw the funds, or continue it earning interest to use for another degree for either him/her or a family member at a later date; 2) Withdraw the proceeds 5-years after his last day of service to the university to do with what he/she pleases.
Regardless of which way one chooses to lean on this issue, there's no denying this is a slippery slope that very few know where it leads--largely because it's dark, murky, with a blindfold called money that obscures much rational thought on what "pay for play" means long term for not only the athletes and universities, but fans as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment