Should Student Athletes Be Paid?
Two economists recommend it. Science Blog:
The current compensation arrangement for big-time college athletics is inefficient, inequitable and very likely unsustainable, according to a new study by economists from the University of Chicago and Vanderbilt University. The article concludes that an evolution to a competitive labor market with fewer restrictions on pay for top athletes may be inevitable, though the transition will be difficult.In their study released this week in the Winter 2015 issue of Journal of Economic Perspectives, Allen Sanderson, senior lecturer in economics at UChicago, and John Siegfried, professor emeritus of economics at Vanderbilt, write that the practice of setting a binding limit on remuneration for student-athletes - grant-in-aid restricted to room, board, tuition, fees, and books - may violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.
The authors argue that payment caps set by the NCAA are holding down benefits that otherwise would go to top-performing athletes, many of them African Americans from low-income families, while top coaches and athletic department personnel receive disproportionately high salaries.
Instead, the researchers recommend, schools should compensate student-athletes according to the value they provide, whether that value comes in the form of measurable revenue or more subjective benefits.
Sanderson said recent proposals by the NCAA to shift from single-year to multiyear scholarships, and to cover unrestricted meal plans and other incidental out-of-pocket costs for players, fall well short of a free competitive labor market.
Such proposals "are mainly an attempt by the NCAA to stay one town ahead of the sheriff," Sanderson said.
...Since athletes have historically been considered students rather than employees, they have not been covered by general labor laws, says the study. Therefore, they cannot bargain collectively via union representation, nor can they apply for workers compensation.
As a result, university athletic departments can essentially dictate many aspects of a student-athlete's routine and engage them in long hours of practices, something that might not be possible if they had to obey general labor laws. The study claims that the NCAA is allowed to maximize its profits by steadily expanding regular-season and playoff/bowl games since the marginal operating cost is minimal.
Two words why this will never happen:
Title IX.
Start paying Football and Basketball players, and in no time, there will be a lawsuit asking not only why the players on the Women's Field Hockey team aren't getting paid, but why they're not getting the big money the football and basketball players get. . .
Keith Glass at February 9, 2015 5:26 AM
I'm left wondering: what's the value of an education?
I was really hoping that the youngin's at Northwestern would have gone thru and organized a union, and gotten what they wanted.
They would have been happy. Right up until they got their W2 tax forms the following year. Since the cost of their education would be considered as income. Well, the IRS would consider it as such, and tax it as such.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 9, 2015 6:38 AM
If this is what's going to happen, then the schools will need to abandon the pretense that the revenue-sport players are students. (Granted, some of them do take advantage of the opportunity and actually get an education, but a lot of them don't.) I can see how this could work out. Basically, say, the University of Alabama licenses its name and logo trademarks to a football team and provides on-campus facilities. In return, the team collects the revenue, plays the players and staff, and then pays the licensing fee to the school. Seemingly everybody's happy; the players are getting paid, the coaching staff is free from jumping through all of the hoops to pretend the players are students, and the university gets free money.
The trouble is, a lot of the acceptance and popularity of college sports is based on that pretense that the players are students. In the long run, I think the whole system is screwed.
(The other point is that at most large schools, money from the revenue sports is what keeps the non-revenue sports going. You can argue that the budget model ought to change, but there are a lot of political obstacles in the way of that at most schools, including state funding and Title IX concerns.)
Cousin Dave at February 9, 2015 7:44 AM
The trouble is, a lot of the acceptance and popularity of college sports is based on that pretense that the players are students.
It's more than a pretense, they *are* students.
Often, not very *good* ones, but they are students.
I roomed with part of the basketball team back in college for a semester. (I was the test case Housing used to hammer Athletics for holding spaces open in their reserved housing.)
(First day, my roommate woke up, stood up, looked down at me and said "Good Morning". I WAS ON THE TOP BUNK. Later I walked into my apartment and walked into a guy who went on to play in the NBA for many year's belly button. BELLY BUTTON. I'm SIX FOOT TWO INCHES TALL. I AM NOT USED TO WALKING INTO BELLY BUTTONS.)
They were students. 2/4 were really bad ones, and I had one trying to hang onto a engineering degree, studying his butt off.
After that semester, I ended up with the baseball team. (They didn't get blocked/reserved, they had someone who went pro and had an opening, just luck of the draw). They went to class religiously - their coach demanded it - since it was _extremely_ unlikely they'd make it in the pros (and if they did, they'd need to know what to do with the money.)
Big football programs - which often will have well over 100 students in some phase - really skews the stereotype of the jock, with basketball (only about 20 or so at any given time) contributing some.
Unix-Jedi at February 9, 2015 8:29 AM
Just as a reminder: almost all colleges lose money on their athletic programs. These programs should spend less money, not more...
a_random_guy at February 9, 2015 9:24 AM
No.
Patrick at February 9, 2015 12:46 PM
"Should Student Athletes Be Paid?"
No, they already get enough - free tuition!
If they can't, or won't, make the most of that - why on earth pay them?
Other students already pay enough subsidizing them.
charles at February 9, 2015 6:41 PM
Problem is depending no the school and teams some of those "student" athletes are spending more than 60 hours a week on the athlete part.
7 * 24 = 168
168 - 60 = 108
sleep should be round 9 per, another 63
108 - 63 = 45
15 credit hours for classes
45 - 15 = 30
That is about 4 hours per day to study, work a job, commute to class & sports, do laundry, cook, eat, clean, bathe occasionally.
Quite frankly schools should dump athletics.
lujlp at February 9, 2015 8:52 PM
Cousin Dave - why pick on Alabama? They advertise more Academic All-Americans than any other public university...
Radwaste at February 10, 2015 12:33 AM
Cousin Dave - why pick on Alabama? They advertise more Academic All-Americans than any other public university...
Posted by: Radwaste at February 10, 2015 12:33 AM
If you are an *academic all American* in Gender Studies does anyone really care?
There should be no sports scholarships, only academic ones. Division 3 and NAIA schools don't give sports scholarships, and still manage to have teams. And it is not the workaholic semi pro atmosphere that the NCAA division one schools have.
One of my children played Division I tennis in college. It was definitely *up the ass a nice at a time*
Isab at February 10, 2015 7:40 AM
Don't buy the hype about "losing money on athletics". It's not true.
They're just using Hollywood Accounting.
(If they were _making money_ then the funding sources, especially Legislatures, would ask "Why are we giving you these many millions again"?)
Unix-Jedi at February 10, 2015 8:24 AM
"nice at a time"
Should be *nickel*
Isab at February 10, 2015 9:51 AM
Isab: That makes a *lot* more sense.
Unix-Jedi at February 10, 2015 10:24 AM
"If you are an *academic all American* in Gender Studies does anyone really care?"
Is that what Alabama is doing?
Radwaste at February 11, 2015 5:09 PM
Leave a comment