Taylor Branch argues that big time college sports are fully commercialized. Corporations offer large sums of money to universities so they can profit from the talent of college athletes. Branch believes that the NCAA imposes amateurism on its athletes for their own selfish gain. Branch calls into question two of the NCAA’s most noble principles on which it justifies its entire existence. The first being amateurism and the second being student-athlete. He believes that both are nothing but “cynical hoaxes” and just legal terms created by the universities so they can exploit the skills and fame of young athletes. The NCAA’s moral authority lies in its justification to protect what it calls the “student-athlete.” The term is meant to represent the amateurism of college sports, and the precedence of …show more content…
scholarship over athletics. Branch argues that the NCAA created the term student athlete to fight against workmen’s compensation insurance claims for football players who are injured in competition. The term student-athlete was made to be ambiguous with a purpose. College players were not only students, nor were they just athletes in college. The fact that they were high-performance athletes meant they could be forgiven for not meeting the academic requirements of their peers; that they were students meant they did not have to be compensated in anyway, for anything more than the cost of their tuition. Student-athlete became the NCAA’s signature term and this term would be used in courtrooms for years to come.
Branch uses the example of TCU football player Kent Waldrep who mas paralyzed in a game against the Alabama Crimson Tide. TCU paid for his medical bills for nine months but refused to pay anymore afterwards. Throughout the 1990’s Waldrep pushed for a lawsuit for workers compensation rights. The appeals court finally rejected Waldrep’s claim in 2000, ruling that he was not an employee because he had not paid taxes on financial aid that he could have kept even if he quit football. The case of Ken Waldrep shows the power of the NCAA’s “student-athlete” formulation as a shield, and the organization continues to use it as both a legal defense and a noble ideal. One argument that Branch discusses is the NCAA and its officials. Those who lead the NCAA have tried to assert their dominion by distracting attention from the larger issues. For example, chasing frantically after petty violations. Branch uses the example of A. J. Green, a wide receiver at Georgia. He confessed that he had sold his own jersey from the Independence Bowl, to raise cash for a spring-break
vacation. The NCAA suspended Green for four games for violating his amateur status with the illicit profit generated by selling his very own jersey. While he served the suspension, the University of Georgia store continued legally selling replicas of Green’s jersey. The NCAA gladly bans personal messages on the bodies of the players, and penalizes players for trading their own possessions and self earned status for their own gain but it codifies precisely how and where commercial insignia from multinational corporations can be displayed on college players, for the financial gain of the colleges. Lastly, the argument is made that the NCAA does not truly care for protecting higher education. It is that within big-time college athletic departments, the financial pressure to disregard academic shortcomings and shortcuts is just too severe. The example Branch draws upon is the case of Jan Kemp, an English instructor and the University of Georgia. Jan Kemp was fired for not inflating athletes’ low grades. Documents showed that administrators replaced the grades she’d given athletes with significantly higher ones, providing falsified passing grades on one notable occasion to nine Bulldog football players who otherwise would not have been able to play in the 1982 Sugar Bowl. Jan Kemp embodied what seemingly is the NCAA’s purpose for enforcing standards fairly and putting studies above sports, no one from the NCAA ever spoke up on Kemp’s behalf (The Shame of College Sports).
Seen through a particular light and given specific occasions in the film, we can see how 42nd Street echoes the general attitudes of the Great Depression. Particular characters in the film exemplify the wealthy citizens of the time, the common laborer, and Julian Marsh (Warner Baxter) portrays a life-force, Franklin Roosevelt, bringing hope along with his New Deal. Throughout the film, there is a dichotomy exhibited through the members of the production and the financiers, namely Abner Dillon. He represents the side of competitive capitalism, while the actors stand for a community. The actors identify with each other because they are all in the same situation and each need the job to survive. Abner, on the other hand, has the money to throw around whimsically, for the difficulties facing the nation do not have the devastating effect on the wealthy that they have on other classes. Hard times have fallen on the nation and they realize that it will take a group effort to pull themselves out of the Depression. While the competition is cut-throat and individualized off of the set, as we see with Dorothy Brach’s arrangement with Abner Dillon, the sense of collectivity is emphasized on stage.
The proposal of payment toNCAA student-athletes has begun major conversations and arguments nationwide with people expressing their take on it. “This tension has been going on for years. It has gotten greater now because the magnitude of dollars has gotten really large” (NCAA). I am a student athlete at Nicholls State University and at first thought, I thought it would be a good idea to be able to be paid as a student-athlete.After much research however; I have come to many conclusions why the payment of athletes should not take place at the collegiate level.The payment of athletes is only for athletes at the professional level. They are experts at what they do whether it is Major League Baseball, Pro Basketball, Professional Football, or any other professional sport and they work for that franchise or company as an employee. The payment of NCAA college athletes will deteriorate the value of school to athletes, create contract disputes at both the college and professional level, kill recruiting of athletes, cause chaos over the payment of one sport versus another, and it will alter the principles set by the NCAA’s founder Theodore Roosevelt in 1906. Under Roosevelt and NCAA, athletes were put under the term of a “student-athlete” as an amateur. All student athletes who sign the NCAA papers to play college athletics agree to compete as an amateur athlete. The definition of an amateur is a person who “engages in a sport, study, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons” (Dictonary.com).
These professors argue that student athletes, under common law and NLRB’s (National Labor Relations Board) employee criterion, do in fact fall under the classification of an employee (Cooper). Under common law, four tests determine if someone is an employee or not. Three of these rules are as follows: “(1) the right of others to control a person's activities; (2) whether that person is compensated; and (3) if that person is economically dependent on that compensation.” According to these guidelines the employer-employee relationship is plainly synonymous to that of coaches and student-athletes. For one, coaches have a significant amount of control over their student-athletes’ activities, two, athletic scholarship money is considered compensation, and third, student-athletes are highly dependent on these scholarships for their food, living, and education. Even after realizing that a student-athlete falls under what the law defines as an employee, we can agree that any D1 student-athlete who works upwards of 40 hours a week to perform at a high level of competition for the universities benefit is essentially working a full time job on top of school work
Imagine a business that brings in $60 million each year ,and the people fueling that industry receive none of the revenue(Wieberg). These same people work 40 hours in their sport every week, these “people” are college athletes. The NCAA, the governing body for major college sports, is the industry doing this to college athletes(Edelman). This is an issue of exploitation and control by large institutions over primarily poor people, the NCAA is guiding them in directions to make money for everybody while doing everything possible to keep the players out of the money. College Athletes deserve profit because they bring in large revenue into their program, the NCAA, and they invest tons of time into their sport.
Throughout the country young men and women are losing their priority for an education. To attend a university should be a highly cherished privilege, and it should be an even greater honor to play athletics for the university. Therefore, the writer supports the decision that the “student” comes before “athlete” in student-athlete. Playing for pay should be considered a job for “professionals”. In the rulebook, the NCAA views college athletes as armatures. This statement sums it up best. When athletes go to college, not all of them go in with the mindset that athletics is going to be their future job....
The NCAA prides itself as an organization dedicated to safeguarding the well-being of student-athletes and equipping them with the skills to succeed on the playing field, in the classroom and throughout life. In order to ensure that participants are students first and athletes second the NCAA has specific rules pertaining to athlete amateurism. The requirements prohibit contracts and tryouts with professional teams, salary for participating in athletics, prize money, and representation by an agent. (Amateurism) These rules not only limit the freedom of the player but also put the player at risk of being taken advantage of due to the lack of a players union and illegality of employing an agent. Other aspects of the NCAA’s rule book have been under scrutiny as well. Marc Edelman, Professor of Law at Baruch College, wrote in his treatise: Why the NCAA’s No-Pay Rules Violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act that courts are now beginning to overturn certain rules that are deemed anticompetitive. This development is important because according to the Sherman Act “Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherw...
Abstract: Collegiate athletes participating in the two revenue sports (football, men's basketball) sacrifice their time, education, and risk physical harm for their respected programs. The players are controlled by a governing body (NCAA) that dictates when they can show up to work, and when they cannot show up for work. They are restricted from making any substantial financial gains outside of their sports arena. These athletes receive no compensation for their efforts, while others prosper from their abilities. The athletes participating in the two revenue sports of college athletics, football and men's basketball should be compensated for their time, dedication, and work put forth in their respected sports.
Paul Dietzel, former head coach of LSU, once said, “You can learn more character on the two-yard line than anywhere else in life.” Ever since the beginning, not only children but also college athletes have been playing sports for the love of the game and have used it as a way to grow character, teamwork, and leadership. Although when playing for a University an athletes job is to bring in profit for the school, this is not why these young men and women have continued with these sports they love. It is usually these students passion, a way for them to express themselves like others have art and music. The question has been up whether these college athletes should be paid for their loyalty and income for the University but by paying these students more than their given scholarship, it would defeat the purpose and environment of a college sport versus a professional sport, cause recruiting disputes, and affect the colleges benefits from these school athletics.
This argument has reached its peak of debate when Northwestern University football players planned to form a union in order to receive some form of representation. Northwestern quarterback, Kain Colter, started this movement when he reached out to the President of the National College Players Association, Ramogi Huma. He said, “This is about finally giving college athletes a seat at the table. Athletes deserve an equal voice when it comes to their physical, academic, and financial protections” ( Farrey). Huma filed a petition to the office of the National Labor Relations board on behalf of the players of Northwestern. Besides this being the first move towards a labor union in college sports what’s important is that the athletes of Northwestern are not seeking unionization due to mistreatment by Northwestern. According to Colter, “The school is just playing by the rules of their governing body, the NCAA.” Also, this isn’t about just helping players at Northwestern. Colter expressed how he wan...
According to the NCAA regulations an athlete will lose his/her eligibility if they are paid to play; sign a contract with an agent; receive a salary, incentive payment, award, gratuity educational expenses or allowances; or play on a professional team. The word amateur in sports has stood for positive values compared to professional, which has had just the opposite. The professional sport has meant bad and degrading; while the amateur sport has meant good and elevating. William Geoghegan, Flyer News sports editor writes, “Would paying athletes tarnish the ideal of amateurism? Maybe, but being fair is far more important than upholding an ideal” (Geoghehan 1).
Recently college athletes have been granted permission to work, from the NCAA. Even with this permission, their jobs are still regulated. One regulation to the athletes working is that they cannot work for alumni of the school. The NCAA has this rule because they feel if athletes work for people with close ties to the school then they will be receiving special benefits while working. These special benefits include, (but are not limited to), athletes being paid while not at work and higher salaries then other workers doing the same job (Anstine 4).
Zimbalist, Andrew S. Unpaid Professionals: Commercialism And Conflict In Big-Time College Sports. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 27 Mar. 2014.
Education and athletics, two of the most prized activities within our society. It's therefore no surprise that the two so closely link in one of our society’s favorite pastimes: college sports. Some believe that these two things benefit each other and some don’t. In the Forbes article titled “Rethinking the Benefits of College Athletics,” the author Jonathan Robe, a research fellow at the Center for College Affordability, explains, “In my short life, I’ve long been perplexed with the way many higher ed administrators–particularly college presidents–tend to laud college sports for the benefits they add to institutions of higher learning.“ He argues that college athletics do not benefit colleges and in some ways can even harm them. A majority of the supports are strong and, despite a few ineffective supports and language, Robe's argument is effective for its intended audience.
Education and Athletics, two of the most prized activities within our society. So is it any surprise that the two are so closely linked in one of our societies favorite pastimes College Sports? Some believe that these two things benefit each other and some don’t. In this Rhetorical Analysis I will be analyzing the argument presented by the article titled Rethinking the Benefits of College Athletics, which questions the academic benefit that college athletics provide. The article which appeared in Forbes magazine is written by Johnathan Robe a research fellow at the Center for College Affordability and Productivity. The author describes his thesis in the first sentence of the article stating “In my short life, I’ve long been perplexed with the way many higher ed administrators–particularly college presidents–tend to laud college sports for the benefits they accrue to institutions of higher learning.“ (Robe 1) arguing that college athletics are not beneficial to colleges and in some ways can even be harmful. Robe's argument does provide supporting evidence, however it is unlikely to convince those readers that come into it with an opposing view.
Growing up in America sport is a vital part of everyday life. From childhood to adulthood some aspect of sport pertains to virtually everyone. As a child one is looking to find a hobby so they play sports. As a parent fathers look forward to coaching their child’s little league team. And as tens and young adults sports are an opportunity to become a “somebody” and do something amazing. The general perception in high school and college is that athletes have it all. If you’re good at sports then you don’t have to worry about schoolwork or popularity and essentially you have but not a care in the world; you are invincible. Although it is great to see some succeed and become professional athletes many others do not have the same fate. The fate of these athletes, which happens to be the majority, is what drives my opinion on college sport.