Originally posted by Ketchum:
From USA Today this morning
These legal challenges did not arise suddenly. They grew from years of frustration among athletes subjected to absurdly restrictive contracts. As the NCAA grew wealthier showcasing the talents of its "amateur" athletes, its definition of "amateur" tightened. Under the guise of safeguarding its "student-athletes," it made certain that virtually any financial gain from an athlete's abilities, likeness or name would go to the NCAA.
This dedication to amateurism is supposed to ensure that athletes compete purely for "the love of the game" rather than for profit. Profit, you see, is bad ? except when the NCAA, its member institutions and its coaches enjoy it.
The highest-paid public employee in 40 states is a college football or basketball coach, according to an analysis last year by Deadspin.com. They not only earn salaries that can be in the millions per year, they also can earn even more through endorsement deals. By contrast, the athletes they coach, whose skill and talent form the foundation of the coaches' fortunes, must sign away the right to earn an income.
Supposedly to guard against corruption, athletes are forbidden from taking money from professional sports teams or agents. But the prevention of corruption cannot explain why the NCAA forbids students from profiting independently from their own likenesses or abilities.
Pauper-athletes
The average athletic scholarship at a public school is $15,000 a year for an in-state student and $25,000 for an out-of-state student, according to the NCAA. If a student wanted to earn some extra money to cover living expenses, he could get a job at McDonald's or start a summer landscaping business. But if the "student-athlete" used his own renown to market his own business, he would be stripped of college eligibility.
The NCAA forbids its athletes from trading on their likenesses or names. They can teach at a sports camp, but can't use their likeness to advertise or promote the camp. They can work at a sporting goods store, but cannot let the store advertise that they work there. They can start their own business, but cannot sell their own image (autographed photos, for instance) or even use their own name to promote it.
The Boston Marathon is coming up in April. A runner could pay for all or most of a college degree with the $150,000 first-place prize. But the NCAA forbids track athletes from profiting from participating in road races. They can enter, but not accept a dime if they win.
These rules do not protect students from being exploited; they guarantee that students are exploited ? by the NCAA.
The NCAA has realized for years that these rules are a problem. In 2007, then-NCAA President Myles Brand participated in a panel that recommended relaxing them. Ohio State's athletic director told CBS Sports just before the NLRB ruling that the NCAA could have avoided the legal challenge had it agreed to pay players a stipend. But as the TV and licensing revenue grew (college football and basketball championship games draw more viewers than regular season Major League Baseball games or NASCAR races and most NBA games), the NCAA rejected players' claim to a greater share of the revenues. As a result, the jealously guarded business model is in danger of collapse, brought down by athletes who have hired lawyers ? which, not incidentally, NCAA rules also strongly discourage.
