NCAA President Acknowledges Inequity in Player Compensation

March 30, 2011 -

NCAA president Mark Emmert said that the organization dedicated to collegiate sports will not stray from its long-standing tenet of not directly paying college sports players.

"It’s grossly unacceptable and inappropriate to pay players … converting them from students to employees," Mark Emmert tells USA Today.

But Emmert also acknowledges that it might be time for the organization to spread some of the revenue it generates from licensing around to players in one way or another. While he is not making any promises, Emmert thinks it would be acceptable to compensate players in other ways such as increasing the amount of money paid towards scholarships and other college expenses.

“I will make clear,” he says, “that I want this to be a subject we explore.”

Emmert says that he will tackle the topic at the NCAA’s board meetings in April.

But Emmert talks as if he has a choice. Either the NCAA figures it out on its own or players - current and former - may get the answers they want through litigation.

According to a USA Today report syndicated through the Tucson Citizen, the NCAA generates approximately $771 million a year in television licensing rights alone. This excludes video games, apparel and more.

Many others see inequality when it comes to the way the NCAA uses college athletes to make millions of dollars. North Carolina Hall of Fame basketball coach Roy Williams wonders aloud why athletic scholarships do not measure up to top academic awards, such as UNC’s Morehead-Cain scholarship. That academic award pays for travel, computers and other important extras. He would like to see the NCAA give a little bit more back to players.

"..those kids are saying, ‘Look at all this money we’re bringing in. And I have to beg, borrow and steal to get an extra meal?," says Williams.

Former NCAA head Cedric Dempsey agrees:

"It puts intercollegiate athletics in a precarious position," says former NCAA executive director Cedric Dempsey. "When you see the money and the kind of salaries you see now and the only group in the system that hasn’t received any additional funding is at the student-athlete level."

You can read a more detailed report of the pros and cons of compensating NCAA players here. It is an interesting discussion and one that all involved agree needs to be addressed.

On a related note, HBO's Real sports will explore the topic at length tonight in prime time special.

Posted in

Comments

Re: NCAA President Acknowledges Inequity in Player ...

Not only would I like to see what the NCAA is proposing here take place. I would also like to see at least 10% of profits go to a national account used to bring smaller colleges student resources like books / housing / equipment / TEACHER PAY up to par with the bigger colleges resources.

The colleges directly profit off of these kids athletic talent. It's about time they spread the love to make colleges around the nation better.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MattsworknameWilson: how? Im still waiting for my upgrade notice07/29/2015 - 3:44am
Matthew WilsonI updated to a clean instill of windows 10.07/29/2015 - 2:36am
Mattsworknameargue that it's wrong, but then please admit it's wrong on ALL Fronts07/29/2015 - 2:06am
MattsworknameTechnoGeek: It's actually NOT, but it is a method used all across the specturm. See Rush limbaugh, MSNBC, Shawn hannity, etc etc, how many compagns have been brought up to try and shut them down by going after there advertisers. It's fine if you wanna07/29/2015 - 2:05am
Mattsworknamediscussed, while not what I liked and not the methods I wanted to see used, were , in a sense, the effort of thsoe game consuming masses to hold what they felt was supposed to be there press accountable for what many of them felt was Betrayal07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAs we say, the gamers are dead article set of a firestorm among the game consuming populace, who, ideally, were the intended audiance for sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Et all. As such, the turn about on them and the attacking of them, via the metods07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAndrew: Thats kind fo the issue at hand, Accountable is a matter of context. For a media group, it means accountable to its reader. to a goverment, to it's voters and tax payer, to a company, to it's share holders.07/29/2015 - 2:02am
Andrew EisenAnd again, you keep saying "accountable." What exactly does that mean? How is Gamasutra not accounting for the editorial it published?07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - I disagree with your 9:12 and 9:16 comment. There are myriad ways to address content you don't like. And they're far easier to execute in the online space.07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - Banning in the legal sense? Not that I'm aware but there have certainly been groups of gamers who have worked towards getting content they don't like removed.07/28/2015 - 11:45pm
DanJAlexander's editorial was and continues to be grossly misrepresented by her opponents. And if you don't like a site, you stop reading it - same as not watching a tv show. They get your first click, but not your second.07/28/2015 - 11:40pm
TechnogeekYes, because actively trying to convince advertisers to influence the editorial content of media is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, especially for a movement that's ostensibly about journalistic ethics.07/28/2015 - 11:02pm
Mattsworknameanother07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
Mattsworknameyou HAVE TO click on it. So they get the click revenue weather you like what it says or not. as such, the targeting of advertisers most likely seemed like a good course of action to those who wanted to hold those media groups accountable for one reason07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
MattsworknameBut, when you look at online media, it's completely different, with far more options, but far few ways to address issues that the consumers may have. In tv, you don't like what they show, you don't watch. But in order to see if you like something online07/28/2015 - 9:12pm
MattsworknameIn tv, and radio, ratings are how it works. your ratings determine how well you do and how much money you an charge.07/28/2015 - 9:02pm
Mattsworknameexpect to do so without someone wanting to hold you to task for it07/28/2015 - 9:00pm
MattsworknameMecha: I don't think anyone was asking for Editoral changes, what they wanted was to show those media groups that if they were gonna bash there own audiance, the audiance was not gonna take it sitting down. you can write what you want, but you can't07/28/2015 - 8:56pm
MattsworknameAndrew, Im asking as a practical question, Have gamers, as a group, ever asked for a game, or other item, to be banned. Im trying to see if theres any cases anyone else remembers cause I cant find or remember any.07/28/2015 - 8:55pm
Andrew EisenAs mentioned, Gamasutra isn't a gaming site, it's a game industry site. I don't feel it's changed its focus at all. Also, I don't get the sense that the majority of the people who took issue with that one opinion piece were regular readers anyway.07/28/2015 - 8:43pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician