NCAA athletes: slaves?

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

The conversation about the state of intercollegiate athletics in the U.S. and needed reforms is increasingly including people stating that NCAA athletes are slaves. I think that it is safe to say that they are not saying that members of the women's golf team or men's tennis team are slaves. They specifically have in mind football and men's basketball, I am sure.

If they mean to say that people are being exploited then it would be difficult to argue against that. Coaches, administrators, sponsors and TV/radio networks are making a lot of money off of NCAA football and men's basketball and the men who produce 90 of the product, the players, get almost none of it. But a lot of other people--workers with minimum wage jobs in retail, restaurants, etc.--are also exploited in the same manner. Nobody calls the latter "slaves".

Really, a lot of student-athletes are doing what a lot non-athletes do: working for low pay in order to get an education. The former get that low pay in the form of scholarships (if you can call it low pay--I recall one person's analysis showing that if you do the math those scholarships amount to more than $100,000 worth of compensation per year). The latter get that low pay in the form of working in retail stores, restaurants, etc. while they go to school.

Meanwhile, there is a difference between a student-athlete and the typical person working at a minimum wage job. With the latter--especially if we are talking about, you know, a single mother who is not going to school--it is their livelihood. With the former it is something that they are doing--because they want to, not because they have to--before they enter the real world of business or government. Who is really being taken advantage of?

And let's not forget that student-athletes get more than the dollar value of a scholarship. They get attention, fame, etc. and after their playing careers are over they get things like money for endorsements. Non-athletes get none of that, yet nobody is suggesting that they are being treated like slaves.

If we want to give up on amateurism and start paying college athletes like they are professionals, fine. But I think that comparing them to slaves is absurd. It trivializes the mistreatment of people who really were and really are slaves.

 

[keith99]

I was a college athlete. NAIA school at the time, now NCAA division 3.

I came in as a swimmer and water polo player.

My choice and it involved years of working out with a club team. There I had to pay for facilities.

In college I had better facilities and comparable coaching for free.

I later played Rugby. Again facilities free and a training staff available to deal with injuries. I once broke a finger, free trip to Kerlan-Jobe, the same orthopaedic clinic that most pro teams in Los Angeles use.

I graduated, I continued to play with a club team. I had to pay for a field and match officials.

The only argument that division 1 athletes are exploited hinges on their ability to go pro, most are not good enough and for the ones who are college is the showcase that gets them the pro contract.

Seems to me the only legit complaint is when athletes are prevented from going pro or when other call them disloyal for deciding to go pro.

 

[Autumnleaf]

If they can't quit then they are slaves. If they can legally walk away then they are not slaves. I think the term slave in the US is something people are trying to keep around despite it being a dead word around the world except in some African countries where Muslims still keep slaves.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

A non-athlete's low pay to help him/her through school is taxed.

Is an athlete's low pay to help him/her through school--a scholarship--taxed?

 

[jayem]

A non-athlete's low pay to help him/her through school is taxed.

Is an athlete's low pay to help him/her through school--a scholarship--taxed?

AFAIK, the tax treatment of athletic scholarships is the same as for academic ones. That part of the scholarship that pays for tuition and direct educational expenses (books, course/lab fees, tutors, etc.) is not taxable. But whatever part covers living expenses (room and board, travel from school to home, personal expenses) is taxable income. However, the standard deduction and personal exemption for a young, single person is now $10,000. So unless the athlete has another significant source of income, he'd only pay tax on the value of his scholarship over 10K. At least that's what I think.

 

[JohnLocke]

No.

Slavery includes the ownership of another human being and the ability to alienate such human being to another, i.e. the ability sell that human being. Whatever else you say about NCAA athletes they cannot be sold. So they are not slaves.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Any NCAA athlete who calls himself a slave should promptly be kicked off the team so he won't be a slave anymore.

 

[cow451]

Poor athletes on a full ride often don't have any cash (legally) and are prohibited from working for extra cash. They cannot accept gifts or free meals except from immediate family.

And, the university, if you are good enough, gets unlimited use of your likeness in marketing and sale of merchandise.

 

[bhsmte]

The conversation about the state of intercollegiate athletics in the U.S. and needed reforms is increasingly including people stating that NCAA athletes are slaves. I think that it is safe to say that they are not saying that members of the women's golf team or men's tennis team are slaves. They specifically have in mind football and men's basketball, I am sure.

If they mean to say that people are being exploited then it would be difficult to argue against that. Coaches, administrators, sponsors and TV/radio networks are making a lot of money off of NCAA football and men's basketball and the men who produce 90 of the product, the players, get almost none of it. But a lot of other people--workers with minimum wage jobs in retail, restaurants, etc.--are also exploited in the same manner. Nobody calls the latter "slaves".

Really, a lot of student-athletes are doing what a lot non-athletes do: working for low pay in order to get an education. The former get that low pay in the form of scholarships (if you can call it low pay--I recall one person's analysis showing that if you do the math those scholarships amount to more than $100,000 worth of compensation per year). The latter get that low pay in the form of working in retail stores, restaurants, etc. while they go to school.

Meanwhile, there is a difference between a student-athlete and the typical person working at a minimum wage job. With the latter--especially if we are talking about, you know, a single mother who is not going to school--it is their livelihood. With the former it is something that they are doing--because they want to, not because they have to--before they enter the real world of business or government. Who is really being taken advantage of?

And let's not forget that student-athletes get more than the dollar value of a scholarship. They get attention, fame, etc. and after their playing careers are over they get things like money for endorsements. Non-athletes get none of that, yet nobody is suggesting that they are being treated like slaves.

If we want to give up on amateurism and start paying college athletes like they are professionals, fine. But I think that comparing them to slaves is absurd. It trivializes the mistreatment of people who really were and really are slaves.

I agree for the most part. I was a division one scholarship athlete and I didn't feel like a slave, I felt I was fortunate to have the opportunity.

With that said, when you look at football and basketball at some programs, the school is making millions of dollars off these programs and that is fine. Where I think this gets towards the edge, is when they are selling the jerseys of certain athletes and making tons of money off of those. A good lawyer, could probably come up with a pretty good argument on that one.

 

[Nithavela]

If that is slavery, where do I sign up?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Not going to lie. This is a pretty ridiculous claim. There might be some issues with the system as is, but whether athletes deserve compensation is pretty low on the list.

 

[apache1]

If that is slavery, where do I sign up?

AMEN! Where I went to university, the basketball team had the best living quarters, the best food, the best perks, etc. There were classrooms where tiles literally fell off the ceiling onto students (and a professor I knew), but the basketball "lodge" and athletic facilities and equipment were literally state of the art. I hear all this crap of paying NCAA athletes, pay 'em if you must, just don't use my (or anyone else's) tax money for this. Tuition for students (as well as books, dorm rooms, etc.) is going through the roof, but athletes/jocks want to be paid for dribbling a basketball or throwing a football or whatever. My old sensei at my old university (who is world class martial artist) another day on phone he thought this subject was a bunch of crap. Scholarship for athletes, yes, payment of salary, absolutely not.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

The most recent thread about slavery reminded me of this thread.

 

[Manic Spinoza]

Lets lament the plight of the college athlete, who slaves under the weight of free college tuition.

 

[bhsmte]

Lets lament the plight of the college athlete, who slaves under the weight of free college tuition.

I think the main issue is driven by this simple fact:

College athletes are the product on the field, that allows universities to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[Manic Spinoza]

I have no problems with them profiting from their name. If the university makes money off of it, they have every right to do so as well. But they should have no expectations they be paid for their service. They receive an education most people only dream of, for free. Not to mention the best food and housing on campus and the VIP treatment they get from boosters.

Or just cut the crap and stop acting like they're students. (and I'm talking only of the basketball and football players. We all know the girls track and field team wouldn't be receiving any money) Pay them what they get get in tuition fees, but if they want to take classes they have to pay with the money they receive.

 

[bhsmte]

I have no problems with them profiting from their name. If the university makes money off of it, they have every right to do so as well. But they should have no expectations they be paid for their service. They receive an education most people only dream of, for free. Not to mention the best food and housing on campus and the VIP treatment they get from boosters.

Or just cut the crap and stop acting like they're students. (and I'm talking only of the basketball and football players. We all know the girls track and field team wouldn't be receiving any money) Pay them what they get get in tuition fees, but if they want to take classes they have to pay with the money they receive.

I think you are missing the point. You state you have no problems with them profiting off of their name and they have every right to make money off of it, but the NCAA has a big problem with it. Hence, the problem.

 

[Manic Spinoza]

I was talking theoretically. I know the NCAA doesn't allow them to profit from their name. Players have had Heisman Trophies stripped from them and Todd Gurley is suspended in the midst of an investigation for autographed memorabilia. I don't know why you are focusing on part of my post when the thread asked the question "NCAA athletes: slaves?" unless you think not being allowed to profit monetarily for an extracurricular activity they voluntarily joined and can leave at any time is akin to slavery.

I think the larger issue is whether or not the billion dollar industry that is college athletics is good for education.

 

[bhsmte]

I was talking theoretically. I know the NCAA doesn't allow them to profit from their name. Players have had Heisman Trophies stripped from them and Todd Gurley is suspended in the midst of an investigation for autographed memorabilia. I don't know why you are focusing on part of my post when the thread asked the question "NCAA athletes: slaves?" unless you think not being allowed to profit monetarily for an extracurricular activity they voluntarily joined and can leave at any time is akin to slavery.

I think the larger issue is whether or not the billion dollar industry that is college athletics is good for education.

Let me give you an analogy.

Let's say a university gives a full scholarship to a gifted student because of academics and that student writes a book while in college that is one that a publisher wants to move forward with. If that gifted student was governed by the NCAA, they could not accept a penny for their book, but they would be ok with the university reaping the profits of it.

 

[Manic Spinoza]

Who decides who gets paid and how much? Will the women's track and field team be paid? They aren't making the university any money, but they put in time and effort just like the men's basketball team does. (Interesting how Title 9 will affect this. I don't know they details of the law so I can't say) What about the fourth string safety, will he be as much as the starting quarterback, if at all? He isn't the one that's bringing in profits. Why she he be paid? And if we are only going to pay star athletes in major sports, could the colleges argue that letting them showcase their talents for free is payment in itself? It's like one of the purposes of colleges. You put in time and effort to impress future employers.