March 19, 2014

Question of the Week: Do you think the NCAA should drop its ban on paying college athletes?

college campusBy the C|C Whistleblower Lawyer Team

It has been the subject of heated debate for years. The so-called “student-athletes” in big-time college sports — FBS football and men’s Division I basketball — bring in billions of dollars a year for their universities and the NCAA but are entitled to nothing in return other than a scholarship that most agree does not even cover the full cost of attending school.

But a new lawsuit claims that the NCAA rules against player compensation violate the antitrust laws as an agreement among universities to fix the prices paid to college athletes.Their goal is to change the system so that big-time college athletes are free to secure the best possible terms of their college enrollment. After all, college sports these days is big business and why shouldn’t the kids who make it all happen, often sacrificing their bodies (and education) in the process, have the ability to share in the spoils.

Defenders of the current system, however, argue the ban is necessary to preserve the amateur nature of college sports and preserve the overriding educational mission of the NCAA and its member universities. Once that system is broken, they claim, college sports will never be the same. Nor will the governing ideal that these players are students first and athletes second.

So where do you stand on the issue: do scholarships do the trick, or should big-time college athletes share in the multi-billion dollar pie?

Do you think the NCAA should drop its ban on paying college athletes?

    Please let us know why in the comment section below.

    *     *     *

    If you would like more information or would like to speak to a member of Constantine Cannon’s whistleblower lawyer team, please click here.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published.

    4 Responses to “Question of the Week: Do you think the NCAA should drop its ban on paying college athletes?

    1. If the lawsuit is successful and the policy is changed, I wonder if it would have the somewhat counterintuitive effect of furthering the NCAA’s professed first priority of educating its athletes. That is, if players are paid in college, might graduation rates go up because the lure of financial relief is less? It will be a fun case to watch: we will be treated to a rivalry game between rhetoric and reality, as well as awkward clashes between the values of academics, antitrust, and big-business college athletics. The outcome may be statistically easier to predict than the NCAA tournament, but I still can’t do it. Although if Warren Buffet dared me to, I would probably hazard a guess.

    2. The NCAA should absolutely drop the ban. Notions of protecting amateurism or the NCAA’s educational mission are a farce. These athletes are treated like tools and discarded when they are no longer useful. Some portion of the billions they rake in should be put in to programs or funds devoted to player welfare, education, business development or health and disability coverage. As it currently stands, the players are entitled to nothing. That needs to change.

    3. colleg atheletes should be paid as the time they spend on playing practices, travel takes away from their education . a study should be makde to see how many of the college tathletes actually then graduate and go on to normal jobs. enve my 12 year old amaaing socer player must practice twice a week games once a week and often must go to touonraments in other cities.. thee cost to her schooling takes a toll.