Unions & College Athletes

Published: March 7, 2014
Peter H. Lester, Sr.

College Players at Northwestern University, lead by Kain Colter (a quarterback for the school’s team), are petitioning the National Labor Relations Board to allow college football athletes to form a union. The NCAA, the governing body that regulates college sports, is against the measure.  However, Mr. Colter’s efforts are supported by a number of his teammates, players at other schools and the United Steelworkers Union.

This action is interesting for several reasons, and it is complex and impossible to condense to a one-page blog. But, that does not mean it is not interesting to discuss from an economic point-of-view and unworthy of addressing at least in-part.

The Money:

Like it or not, “Big College Football” is also “Big Business”. It is estimated that in 2012-2013, major colleges and universities generated $4.7 Billion in revenue from its two biggest sports – Football and Basketball.  According to the Southeastern Conference’s own website (press release dated 5/13/2013), the SEC distributed $289.4 million to its 14 member institutions in 2013 – a record for the conference, and an increase of $45 million over the previous year.

So, as the saying goes, “if we say the issue is not the money… it’s the money.” And in this instance – it is clearly the money. Players see the TV revenue, jerseys emblazoned with their name, video games, and none of that revenue is going to them.

At the heart of the issue is the question: are football players and other athletes employees of the university or are they students who participate in athletics? If they are declared employees, a Pandora’s Box of issues could be opened. Questions in my mind include:

·   Are they simply employees because there is money involved? If it has to do with time commitment, then what about swimmers, gymnasts, volleyball players, baseball/softball, track and field? In many instances their time commitment is as great if not greater.

·   Moreover, there are a lot of graduate students (think chemistry lab, or someone working on that PhD paper concerning Shakespeare) who work for free, certainly committed to their craft, and they do so for a higher degree. Should they not be considered employees and get “paid” as well?

·   Does this “commitment" not extend to athletes in the lower divisions (smaller colleges and universities) that frankly do not receive the revenue and attention of the larger schools?

As with most things created by man, there are inherent weaknesses and no system will be perfect. Here are a few of the weaknesses...

First, there is the notion of the "Student-Athlete". Colleges are institutions of higher learning. When they compromise the “learning” expectations, then issues arise. Athletes are admitted who frankly cannot handle the scholastic expectations. It is also the case that students who are serious about their studies are definitely challenged by the commitment required and in fact demanded if they desire to compete at the best of their ability.

Second, the NCAA closely regulates what scholarship athletes can do to make money. Signing autographs for-pay, even working a wage-per-hour paying job can be restricted. At first-glance, this may seem petty, but you must remember there were players in the 70’s who were paid to water people’s lawns – and the sprinklers were on automatic timers (i.e. they did nothing to earn the wage). Jesse Owens, when he was at Ohio State, was a state congressional page. It has been said he worked very little and received $60 per month for holding this job, but providing no service - other than winning races for his University (and this was in the1930's). So there are reasons for the rules. In my mind, if the NCAA is going to limit a student’s ability to earn wages, they must compensate them adequately for that lost opportunity.

This issue is exacerbated by the fact that we have athletes who are thrown into an environment where they do not have “walking around” money, and no way to earn it. While everyone around them can earn money and many have money. They do not "fit in" without some cash. If they wanted to pay for a pizza, they cannot. If they have a wife and child, the player can eat on campus at the training table, but his wife and children cannot. How is the  athlete to support them? If a parent dies and they need to travel home for the funeral, how are they to pay for the bus ticket?

If the NCAA was to provide for a stipend to be paid (say $200 per month), that may be adequate for a player at Auburn or Clemson, but I am pretty sure that money would not go as far in LA for a player at UCLA. It is also the case that while the University of Texas may have the money to pay athletes, I am not sure that the University of Texas El Paso does. So, how does that school compete for talent?

In general, I do not agree with unions. Rather, I believe in the free-market and the mobility of the worker. If the worker does not like the wage, they can move to a different job. If the employer does not like the workers they have, they may need to increase pay to attract better workers. I think what needs to happen is: A scholarship should include health insurance, the cost of tuition (I will come back to this), the “normal costs of attending college”, room and board. In normal costs I would include: cell phone, laptop, and a cash stipend (monthly wage) adjusted for an area’s cost of living.

When it comes to education, I believe athletes should be allowed to attend college for free for up to an additional 2 years (tuition is covered), after completing their athletic eligibility (an athlete has five years to get in four years of athletic participation). So we are saying, if they leave college after their Junior year to become a pro, and they blow out their knee, the school must accept them back and provide them with two years of tuition so they can finish their education.

I believe scholarship athletes receive a lot. While much is demanded, much is provided: scholastic tutors, food, nutritionists, coaches, trainers and potential life-memories, not to mention room, board and tuition. No one forces a student to accept the scholarship.

To be clear, for some, it is their only way out of their current environment – they would not be going to college if there was not a scholarship; and a college scholarship is a great opportunity.

Okay, it is time for full-disclosure. I played College Football and ran track & field in Division III. I was on a "leadership" scholarship which required me to maintain a certain grade point average and stay involved in two extra curricular activities (which both happened to be sports). The scholarship was provided by the Presbyterian Church, but I had to attend a short list of church-affiliated schools. As the last of four children, this scholarship was important to my family and allowed me to exit college largely debt-free.

So, I understand something about: needing a scholarship, having to attend class and compete.

On some level, colleges need to pony up and pay the full cost of college if the NCAA is going to continue to limit income opportunities for students. It is also the case that athletes need to understand that there is an academic component to the agreement, and they must abide by those requirements too.

It is also a truth that some schools have no business trying to compete at the highest level. They need to stop trying. They should field teams for the pure sport of the sport in a spirit of true amateur athletics. 

Lastly, the NFL and NBA benefit greatly from the current arrangement. Essentially, colleges are the minor league system for those sports.  A part of me wants to say that the professional leagues should write a check to the NCAA that would be distributed to all scholarship athletes so that the “walking around money” is funded by them. In this way, schools that do not have money in their budget to pay the wage, would have a source of revenue. Currently, the NFL does not bear a proportional cost for player development.