Opinion: Fair Pay to Play Act still isn’t fair
Several months ago, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that will make it easier for college athletes in his state to profit from their name, image and likeness. Colloquially known as the Fair Pay to Play Act, Newsom’s bill added a new level to an ever-evolving question: should collegiate athletes be allowed to profit from their sports?
Following Newsom’s bill, the NCAA passed a new policy of their own, voting “unanimously to permit students participating in athletics the opportunity to benefit from the use of their name, image and likeness in a manner consistent with the collegiate model,” the association said in a news release.
As part of the NCAA’s policy of remaining “consistent to the college model,” universities must “[reaffirm] that student-athletes are students first and not employees of the university.” Yet, that’s exactly what most student-athletes have been for years — not just employees but an unpaid labor force.
Though Newsom’s bill and the NCAA’s policy are a step in the right direction, this new rule is not enough. In the wake of recent scandals regarding loans and boosters, it’s time to consider allowing athletes to profit on more than just their name, image and likeness. After all, the NCAA is a multi-billion dollar company that pays some of its coaches multi-million dollar salaries. Shouldn’t the ones playing the games make some of the profit too?
The main argument against paying student-athletes is the scholarships they receive. However, if you look at the numbers, there is a significant gap between the cost of education and the revenue these athletes generate for their universities.
Last year, the Duke men’s basketball program reportedly made over $36 million in revenue. If they were to adopt the same pay style of the NBA, where 50% of the revenue goes to the players, they would’ve paid out $18 million. Evenly distributed, that’s over $1.2 million per player. The estimated cost to attend Duke University for 2018-2019: $74,339.
That model, in which a Duke player is shown to be worth $1 million more than his education, doesn’t even take into account endorsement opportunities. Someone like former Duke star Zion Williamson would’ve been worth tens of millions of dollars.
There’s also the problem of disparity between coaches and players. Consider Clemson football coach Dabo Swinney, who recently signed a ten-year, $93 million contract extension, and is adamantly against the Fair Pay to Play Act. But do you tune in on Saturdays to watch Swinney, or Trevor Lawrence and Travis Etienne?
Another argument against paying collegiate athletes is that revenue-generating sports help fund non-revenue generating sports, such as women’s and individual sports like golf and tennis. Yet, imagine if professional golfer Rickie Fowler had been allowed to host his own golf camps or partner with the local country club while at Oklahoma State. A collegiate athlete doesn’t have to be famous to generate revenue for themselves — the NCAA just has to let them.
The NCAA is taking steps in the right direction, but there is so much more that can be done. Though legislation on player payment methods could take a while, it’s time to let collegiate athletes share in the massive profits they’re generating.
