B. David Ridpath, Ed.D. Kahandas Nandola Professor of Sport Management, Ohio University
Amateurism!!!
This is a nod to one of my favorite newspaper reporters, the late Gene Amole of the Denver Post, who always started his articles with one word, usually a powerful one word beginning. Today, I start this article with the powerful word amateurism. Amateurism and the concept of it is literally the bane of all existence for those involved in NCAA compliance. I shudder to think that without the world of amateurism we would not have the long national nightmares of bagels and cream cheese equaling a meal and the unfortunate incident of an athlete having to seek eligibility restoration and pay restitution for the unfortunate sin of using a university owned garden hose to wash her car. These are just a few examples of amateurism run amok and aside from the obvious job security it gives professional compliance administrators, we have to ask ourselves—is the current model of amateurism as defined by the NCAA tenable? I contend it is dying, if not already dead, and we must be prepared for this eventuality and how it will impact the profession of intercollegiate athletics compliance administration.
Why will the current model and NCAA athletic administration change? To remind ourselves, the current general definition of amateurism by the NCAA starts with a bedrock principle where education is first and foremost the priority. In addition, in general terms, here is what is not permitted to happen if you are an “amateur athlete” according to the current NCAA manual:
Contracts with professional teams
Salary for participating in athletics
Prize money above actual and necessary expenses
Play with professionals
Tryouts, practice or competition with a professional team
Benefits from an agent or prospective agent
Agreement to be represented by an agent
Delayed initial full-time collegiate enrollment to participate in organized sports competition
Receiving any money based on athletic skill or reputation
Most people do not know what amateurism is by definition and I believe it has never really existed as intended, which is playing the sport for health benefits and no remuneration. Most people believe that amateurism simply means participating in athletics and not receiving any pay for that endeavor. As noted by the above list, there is much more to it but I wonder if these were allowed, how much would things really change? By NCAA standards, the concept and definition of amateurism is essentially a moving goalpost and where it stops nobody knows. Originally the NCAA’s founding principles stated that the use of inducements, including scholarships, to recruit college athletes was a blatant violation of amateurism. We all know that scholarships and other forms of authorized payment are allowed, such as the Special Opportunity Fund, and technically these would be a violation of amateurism is the purest sense of the word. The NCAA has continued to modify its definition of the term “amateur athlete” to fit the model it wants and has drifted away from its founding principles simply because amateurism does not work and it is time for a change.
The change will happen because the NCAA and its outdated concepts are getting justifiably hit from many sides, including the government and within its own membership. A fantastic new report written by fellow Drake Group members Andrew Zimbalist and Allen Sack takes the outdated concept of amateurism to task and I believe sets us on a path to better manage college athletics from a macro sense rather than the daily minutiae that frustrates and complicates any semblance of a functional compliance operation. Sack, a professor of sports management at the University of New Haven and president of the Drake Group, based at UNH and Zimbalist, the Robert A. Woods Professor of Economics at Smith College present a compelling argument to change the way intercollegiate athletics is operated with regard to amateurism and explain by doing this, intercollegiate athletics really would not change as much as people think.
This report was issued in response to the “elephant in the room” lawsuit filed by Ed O’Bannon, a former UCLA basketball player, and other former and current athletes claiming that they deserve some of the revenue the NCAA collects by marketing and selling video games, television rights, and licensing rights using their performance, photos and likenesses. The NCAA and others are vigorously fighting this lawsuit claiming it will change college sports forever. However this report draws a different and ultimately correct conclusion that the athletes are paid already and allowing them to make money on the side by virtue of their athletic utility should not be restricted as this quote demonstrates:
“Allowing former and current college athletes to share revenue from the NCAA’s sale of their images, likenesses, and names is no more a violation of amateurism than paying for their educations, or conditioning the renewal of their scholarships each year on athletic performance,” Sack said.
The report notes that the current NCAA manual does not allow pay except as permitted by the governing legislation of the association. In short, said Zimbalist, “amateurism in intercollegiate athletics is whatever the NCAA says it is, and most judges have accepted the NCAA’s arbitrary uses of the term without question.”
This last quote is one of the most salient. In reality—amateurism is whatever the NCAA says it is and it has led to nickel and dime minute violations in a quest to somehow level the playing field. Everything as mentioned before is restricted under the guise of an imperfect moving definition. It has created a legislative abyss that serves no benefit except to hire more compliance people. Frankly, the playing field is not level and changing amateurism rules is not going to make it any different. I am not advocating for straight salaries for college athletes, but it is time to allow a stipend and to allow college athletes to do what every other student can do—and that is make money based on skill and reputation, something that even Walter Byers, longtime former director of the NCAA and staunch defender of amateurism, said should happen in his groundbreaking 1995 book “Unsportsmanlike Conduct.” Let the free market decide this as we have already destroyed any semblance of amateurism years ago, if we ever even had it.
For those of us in the compliance profession, it is time to simplify the process and focus on things within our control and not regulating or restricting a class of people while others make millions off their names. Whether it is Missy Franklin, Brittany Griener, or Johnny Manziel-they deserve the American free market opportunity to make money off their name and likeness if others do. A scholarship is great and can have value, but it is not enough if a student who is an athlete has the ability to make money with his or her marketing utility.
From a compliance administration perspective we can get away from spending hours on alleged minute amateurism violations and focus on governance issues such as playing and practice seasons and academic eligibility. If college athletes are students first and are to be treated like other students, let’s not restrict them by an ancient concept that serves no purpose in the 21st century and allow them to be like other students.
It will not change college sports at all. The Olympic Games are thriving and so will college sports under a new model. People will still show up to watch the games, the big schools will still get the best players, the athletes will have an opportunity to get an education and train for higher levels of competition if they desire, and the system will be fair to all involved, not just a privileged few. Plus compliance as a profession will be better as it will focus on things that matter instead of “bagels and cream cheese.” How American and how needed. Amateurism is dying—if not already dead. It is time to prepare for the inevitable.
