# data[].attributes.headline
"All the money they generate for the programs and stuff, it's kind of an unfair system. ... Everybody knows everybody's getting paid and that's how it is. Everybody's getting paid anyway. You might as well make it legal. That's how I feel." - Lonzo Ball

# data[].attributes.subject
"All the money they generate for the programs and stuff, it's kind of an unfair system. ... Everybody knows everybody's getting paid and that's how it is. Everybody's getting paid anyway. You might as well make it legal. That's how I feel." - Lonzo Ball

# data[].attributes.body
People only see an athlete on television, they are also students. Sports is a part-time job.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The N.C.A.A. is embroiled in scandal yet again. Last week, federal prosecutors charged several coaches, an agent and a sports apparel executive with, essentially, illegally profiting off branding opportunities for basketball players.

That shouldn't really surprise anyone. This scandal isn't truly about corrupt coaches and shoe salesmen. It's about the lengths to which the N.C.A.A. goes to control every dollar and branding opportunity associated with college athletics.

An illegal economy has operated behind high-level college athletics for a long time. Its root cause is that universities with powerhouse sports teams like U.C.L.A., Ohio State and Texas receive nearly $20 million a year from brands like Adidas or Nike, while the athletes wearing the Adidas or Nike apparel are expected to compete purely for the love of the game.

College basketball players are worth a lot of money, but they aren't legally allowed to make it. So the schools, coaches, agents and shoe companies make the money instead - all in the name of "amateurism."

It's clearly time to revise the rules of the N.C.A.A. in favor of the students. But as simply paying the players seems to be a non-starter, let's begin by reforming the association's bylaw that prevents college athletes from promoting any personal creative endeavor if they even mention that they participate in a sport.

Here's an example from Macalester College, where I am president. Our school is fortunate to have as a student a young man (whose name I can't mention) who has published a book (whose title I can't cite). The book has nothing whatsoever to do with athletics, but among his many activities at the college, he participates in an intercollegiate sport (which, of course, shall remain unspecified).

Most people not associated with the N.C.A.A. would consider this an impressive diversification of skills and interests. But N.C.A.A. bylaw 12.5.1.3, otherwise denoted as "Modeling and Other Nonathletically Related Promotional Activities," specifies that, in promoting the book, no reference can be made to the individual's "involvement in intercollegiate athletics."

What does this mean in practice? It means that the author's book biography cannot state that he participates in a college-level sport. It means that, in publicizing the book to students or alumni, the college cannot mention that the author is a student athlete. It even means that the student cannot mention the book on his Facebook page because his Facebook profile shows photos of him engaging in the unspecified sport.

Presumably this rule was written to prevent a college athlete, whether from a Division I sports juggernaut or a Division III college like Macalester, from making piles of money after revealing he is an intercollegiate athlete. The N.C.A.A. wants to prevent some Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback or some one-and-done power forward at the University of Kentucky from writing a book or modeling a sweater in order to profit from his collegiate athletic celebrity.

Of course, the reasonable response to this concern is: What's wrong with a person profiting from his own accomplishments and celebrity? Isn't that more or less the way it's supposed to work? But the N.C.A.A., not content with the billions in TV and merchandising revenue it already takes in, is determined to leave no spare change under the couch cushions.

Lest you think I exaggerate, look up the case of the two athletes at the University of Iowa who started a T-shirt screening business and were threatened with ineligibility by the N.C.A.A. because their website mentioned that they met because they were both - brace yourself - swimmers. Or the more recent case of a cross-country runner at Texas A&M who was threatened with ineligibility for posting a YouTube video about a water bottle company he started.

The most repugnant aspect of this N.C.A.A. rule is that it runs directly counter to the optimal American college education. We want students to have multiple interests, multiple facets to their personal and academic lives, and to explore openly how those various identities play out. We want a student athlete to think - and talk - about what it means to be an athlete and an author, or an athlete and an entrepreneur, or an athlete and an artist. But a student who designs and sells greeting cards and mentions on her Facebook page that she is a softball player risks losing her athletic eligibility. That is shameful. Bylaw 12.5.1.3 has got to go.

Given all of the stereotypes about student athletes as prizing sports over academics, one would think that the N.C.A.A. would be enthusiastic about opportunities to shatter those. But given the choice between doing so and inadvertently allowing an athlete to profit from even the most tangential connection to his or her own athletic efforts, the N.C.A.A. has decided to force students to disguise who they are.

For those few students who star in Division I, it is an invitation to enter into a sad but unsurprising underground economy. For Division III athletes, the hypocrisy is a dispiriting act of silencing. For anyone who cares about fairness, it is a disgrace.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | How the N.C.A.A. Cheats Student Athletes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The N.C.A.A. is embroiled in scandal yet again. Last week, federal prosecutors charged several coaches, an agent and a sports apparel executive with, essentially, illegally profiting off branding opportunities for basketball players. That shouldn't really surprise anyone. This scandal isn't truly about corrupt coaches and shoe salesmen.

# data[].attributes.body
“They knew corrupt coaches, in return for bribes, would pressure the players to use their services. They also knew that if and when those young players turned pro, that would mean big bucks for them.”

# data[].attributes.body
NCAA Revenue

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mar 7, 2018

Darren RovellESPN Senior Writer

Close

ESPN.com's sports business reporter since 2012; previously at ESPN from 2000-06

Appears on SportsCenter, ESPN Radio, ESPN.com and with ABC News

Formerly worked as analyst at CNBC

The NCAA pulled in more than $1 billion in revenue for the first time in history during the 2016-17 school year.

The $1.06 billion in revenue from September 2016 through August 2017 is reported in audited financials the organization released on Wednesday.

The majority of the revenue came from its usual source -- the NCAA men's basketball tournament. The NCAA pulled in $761 million from the 2017 NCAA tournament. That number is set to rise to $869 million this year.

The NCAA also generated $129.4 million in ticket revenue and $60 million in marketing rights for the 2017 fiscal year.

The NCAA's expenses were $956 million. The largest chunk of that spending went to dispersing $560.3 million back to its roughly 1,100 member institutions in 24 sports in all three divisions, as well as $200 million for a one-time payment the NCAA made to schools to fund additional programs.

Another $160.5 million went to the Division I performance fund, which awards conferences based on how many teams play in the NCAA tournament and how far they advance. Units are paid out over six years.

The NCAA also recorded a $209 million settlement related to those past athletes who argued the value of their scholarships was illegally capped. A $70 million concussion testing and diagnosis settlement also hangs in the balance. The organization noted that it is still negotiating with its insurance carriers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NCAA tops $1 billion in revenue for first time

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mar 7, 2018 Darren RovellESPN Senior Writer Close ESPN.com's sports business reporter since 2012; previously at ESPN from 2000-06 Appears on SportsCenter, ESPN Radio, ESPN.com and with ABC News Formerly worked as analyst at CNBC The NCAA pulled in more than $1 billion in revenue for the first time in history during the 2016-17 school year.

# data[].attributes.body
Athletes get a handful of services from their scholarships.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
During this year's NCAA tournament, there has been obvious speculation about college athletes and the significant amount of revenue they have been bringing to their schools and the NCAA. This isn't something new. This is something that has been a growing issue in recent years. Not just a regular issue at that, but a structurally racial issue on many levels. African Americans make up the majority of college athletes at the top levels in three major sports: men's and women's basketball (Division I) and the upper FBS level of the NCAA's Division I, according to Travis Walton's HuffPost article "Black Americans Support Paying College Athletes. White People? Not So Much." These also happen to be the highest revenue-generating sports in college athletics.

Race isn't the only issue, but statistically it plays a huge part in the reason why many people oppose the fact that college athletes should be getting paid. According to the same article, "A majority ― 52% ― of black respondents are strongly or somewhat in favor of paying college athletes, while only 15% strongly or somewhat oppose the idea. Among whites, however, the numbers flip: Just 27% support paying those athletes, while 43% oppose it."

If a majority of these college athletes, who are bringing in staggering amounts of money to these schools were white, would this even be a conversation?

Ed O'Bannon, a former professional basketball player, won a lawsuit in 2014 where the NCAA was ordered to pay $44.4 million in attorneys' fees and another $1.5 million in costs to lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Ed O'Bannon class-action antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA.

O'Bannon and 19 others sued the NCAA, claiming the organization violated United States antitrust laws by not allowing athletes to get a share of the revenues generated from the use of their images in broadcasts and video games. Many former collegiate players were compensated, but some felt it was inadequate and they were owed more.

In 2014, Shabazz Napier was quoted:

"We do have hungry nights that we don't have enough money to get food in. Sometimes money is needed. I don't think you should stretch it out to hundreds of thousands of dollars for playing, because a lot of times guys don't know how to handle themselves with money. I feel like a student athlete. Sometimes, there's hungry nights where I'm not able to eat, but I still gotta play up to my capabilities."

All of this begs the question, that if the NCAA did choose to pay college athletes, what would be the advantages or disadvantages of doing so? Below are a few potential pros and cons of paying college athletes.

1. Support their families ― Players would be able to actually afford a decent meal and possibly send some money back home. Many of these athletes come from urban, low-class families and often leave school early because of the unimaginable pressure to be the main provider for their family at a young age.

2. Players may stay longer ― To back up the last point, players wouldn't have to leave school early and would still be able to pursue an education while taking care of their family back home. This would possibly increase graduation rates, allow fans to see their favorite players mature through college, and ensure coaches are preparing athletes as much as possible for the next level.

3. Limits corruption from external influences ― Compensating athletes in college will limit the corruption involving agents, boosters and others. Over the years we have seen and heard scandals involving players taking money and even point-shaving. Wouldn't paying them eliminate a lot of these issues?

4. Giving them what they deserve right? ― In Business Insider last week, there was an article that stated, "It is estimated that the University of Louisville has the most valuable players at $1.72 million per year based on the program's $45.6 million in annual revenue. Overall, the average Division I player is worth $170,098 per year with the 351 Division I basketball programs taking in more than 4.5 million in revenue on average each year." These athletes are bringing in incredible amounts of revenue to these schools ― why aren't they receiving what is due? I mean the bottom line is, isn't this what they deserve for their labor?

1. Financial irresponsibility ― Amateur players receiving compensation just seems like a complete disaster. They don't know how to manage their money, and there wouldn't be anyone their to guide their financial decisions. Colin Cowherd states, "I don't think paying all college athletes is great; not every college is loaded, and most 19-year-olds (are) gonna spend it-and let's be honest, they're gonna spend it on weed and kicks!"

2. Unfair compensation between players ― How will players be compensated? Will each player receive the same amount? What about the top level talent? Should they receive more because they were All-Americans? In theory, wouldn't it bring problems between players, due to one teammate potentially receiving more money?

3. Athletes may never go to class ― Let's face it, if they give these kids money, they'll never have any incentive to go to class. Many of them don't want to go already, combined with the fact that some may be receiving grades without doing any work. Money will only add to this fact.

4. Removes athletes competitive nature and passion for the game ― Players will take on a "pro mindset" where the only motive is money. They will lose that hunger and passion that we see in college. It will be traded for lackadaisical plays and half-ass efforts that we sometime see from pros.

As always, there are two sides to any argument. Even as a former college athlete, I am at a point in my life where I can understand each side. But I do find it interesting as to why so many are widely opposed to this idea. Is it racial? Is it because it's unnecessary? Is it unfair?

Whatever it may be, it looks like this growing debate won't be dying down anytime soon.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College Athletes Getting Paid? Here Are Some Pros And Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During this year's NCAA tournament, there has been obvious speculation about college athletes and the significant amount of revenue they have been bringing to their schools and the NCAA. This isn't something new. This is something that has been a growing issue in recent years.

# data[].attributes.body
FBI investigations on NCAA coaches for payments given to atheletes

# data[].attributes.body
Collegiate Athletes Being Paid