WASHINGTON — College athletes are demanding more compensation from the NCAA, which has seen paychecks rise thanks to lucrative TV deals — and now Congress will probe how the NCAA is handling itself.
The NCAA is entering a financial stratosphere it has never seen before. Five of the six Bowl Championship Series conferences rake in at least $150 million in total revenue per year from broadcast rights, with the sixth conference (the Big East) entering a new contract for 2013.
No longer satisfied with just a scholarship, the players want a piece of that pie. Last week 339 players signed a petition asking the NCAA for grants and bigger scholarships. On Thursday, the NCAA approved a highly-touted reform that would give student athletes an additional $2,000 in scholarship money.
But while it appears the NCAA may be listening, other signs suggest it still is not. When Ramogi Huma, head of the National Collegiate Players Association, the group that drafted the petition, requested a meeting with NCAA president Mark Emmert, he was denied. And the extra $2,000? Barely a blip on the financial statement of a university.
The NCAA is not responding more substantively to its athletes because it doesn’t have to hear its players complain
“Since we’re not employees and we’re not a union, there’s nothing mandating the NCAA to listen to us,” said Jeff Locke, a kicker for UCLA, and one of the players who circulated the petition.
While the NCAA might not listen, Congress is beginning to. On Tuesday, Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., will host a roundtable discussion on the state of the NCAA. Huma will be there.
So will Andy Schwarz, a managing partner at OSKR, a law firm based in California that specializes in sports, antitrust, entertainment and intellectual property.
Schwarz views the NCAA as a “cartel.”
“It brings together 300-plus independent businesses called colleges and they agree collectively and collusively on a maximum scholarship,” Schwarz said. “They are imposing this anti-competitive behavior on a market, and then they’re giving a take it or leave it offer to all the students.”
Meanwhile, limiting the amount of money a student athlete can make is actually costing the schools even more money to get the players they want.
“If you restrict people from getting paid a market wage, a black market will emerge,” said Toby Moskowitz, a professor at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. “That’s why you’re going to get cheating and all those other things.”
The effects of an NCAA violation can cripple a program.
“Losing Terrelle Pryor and losing Jim Tressel was massively expensive to Ohio State,” Schwarz said. “They’d rather spend every year a little to keep the product strong.”
Instead of spending on players to improve their programs, schools are spending on themselves. Some of the most popular ways to lure recruits in this era is paying millions of dollars for coaches, stadium renovations and workout facilities.
Simply paying players could have similar or better results for a fraction of the cost, advocates argue.
“If you take a school that wants to jumpstart its program, the most effective way would be to pay athletes directly,” Schwarz said.
NCAA regulations prohibit athletes from earning salaries because it would void their amateur status, but if it changed its stance, the schools would be forced to adapt quickly.
“If it’s determined schools need to pay the money, we’ll find a way,” said Tom Schott, associate athletics director for Purdue University, one of the five schools with players that signed the NCPA’s petition.
While it may be advantageous for some schools to start paying players, they aren’t the ones making the push. It is still up to the players, who have few options and little say.
One idea that has been commonly suggested is boycotting a game. Huma said that the NCPA has never advocated for this and isn’t now, but even if it did, a boycott might not produce the desired results.
“You’d be in violation of your scholarship grant, so be careful what you wish for,” said Peter Carfagna, a Harvard Law professor who specializes in sports law.
Another option is for individuals to take a stand. When a player receives a scholarship, he or she signs away all publicity rights in perpetuity, meaning the school is the only one that can profit from using the likeness of the player, even after that player graduates.
Before agreeing to a scholarship, a player can bring in an attorney to draft a document that would allow the player to regain those rights after he or she graduated.
“Would the school say ‘No, we don’t want you to play here because your rights are more important than playing here for a year?’ I don’t think so,” Carfagna said.
For the moment, though, players are banding together in their fight. While there is no players’ association for NCAA athletes, the NCPA is serving as a way for the students to get their voice out there.
Locke said after the petition was released, players “from schools across the country” contacted him in the subsequent 24 to 48 hours.
With growing player support and a trip to Congress on the horizon, Huma believes that the student athletes are slowly gaining the leverage they have lacked in the past.
“The fact of the matter is when you turn on the TV, you’re not going to watch the coach on the sideline or you’re not going to look at some administrator,” Huma said. “It’s a joint venture. The schools provide the platform. Neither can have a sport without the other at this point.”