With the introduction of various bills that are letting collegiate athletes receive pay for their services, I decided to take a crack at coming up with some possible solutions for this issue. I took a particular interest in the problem that the organization is facing regarding whether or not to pay athletes in college for the usage of their name and likeness. The consequences of the current policies in place - which state that no collegiate athlete can accept payment before or during their NCAA careers - include a lack of diversity, injuries that ruin players’ careers (thereby financially devastating their families), and athletes’ loss of motivation to play at the collegiate level. Broadly speaking, these athletes are currently being forced to work for free and to oblige to all NCAA restrictions; otherwise, they would face ineligibility. I argue that this is an immoral policy. This policy and the NCAA’s lack of diversity manifest themselves in a few different ways. A lack of diversity among the NCAA staff is problematic for a myriad of reasons, including the loss of diversity’s potential to increase organizational commitment, to decrease turnover, and to bring diverse perspectives to the table. The NCAA rule preventing college athletes from being paid influences some players more than others; some aren’t bothered by their lack of income while others need to support themselves and/or their families. Not receiving compensation also leads to future professional athletes sitting out of championship or bowl games and sometimes entire seasons to preserve their bodies, thus decreasing the NCAA’s viewership. I came up with a few possible solutions for the NCAA’s issues. I suggest creating a student-athlete union, diversity classes and quotas for college coaches and NCAA staff, and a revenue-sharing system for different divisions of NCAA sports.
Problem 1 - Refusal To Pay Its Athletes
The NCAA’s financial success (it brings in $1.06 billion in revenue) is not exactly morally earned; the organization refuses to pay the individuals who are mainly responsible for generating that revenue, the student-athletes. This issue is especially prevalent in college football and college basketball in which athletes are not allowed to enter a professional league until they have been in college for three years (football) or have been removed from high school for one year (basketball). Because of this, unless athletes play overseas, they have no way of profiting off their talents (and their work) until they have met a specific eligibility standard.
Problem 2 - Lack Of Diversity At The Executive Level
Restrictions are not the only issue the NCAA faces. The organization’s hiring practices have come under immense scrutiny for its severe lack of minority representation. The statistics regarding diversity are alarming, as shown by the graph published by the NCAA below. Most notably, head coaches and athletic directors are white 86 and 85 percent of the time respectively. The percentage of white staff remains in the 80s for other important positions, such as associate and assistant athletic director and assistant head coach. (Irick, 1)
Manifestation Of Problem 1
As a result of the lack of pay and diversity, the NCAA is currently faced with extremely low organizational commitment and resentment from its athletes across the nation. Largely due to their lack of compensation, it is common for the best college athletes to leave school early (even after one year in some cases) and to avoid participating in crucial games in order to avoid injury and to preserve their bodies for their professional careers.
This problem has seen significant racial ramifications as well. Tennessee Congressman Steve Cohen pointed out that by “keeping kids, who are more likely to be African-American than not, from playing professional basketball and football when they can help their families and communities immediately” is wrong (Thamel, 1). Many athletes come from poor families; risking a professional career due to injury while they are not paid can rob them of the opportunity to lift their families out of poverty. To make matters worse, predominantly white sports like hockey and baseball do not have the same eligibility restrictions as football and basketball. This is an example of privilege.
Randy Livingston is a prime example of a player who was affected by these policies. Although he was universally recognized as the nation’s top high school player, he tore his right anterior cruciate ligament during college before making the NBA. As a result, he potentially lost out on hundreds of millions of dollars because he got hurt on a contract that paid him nothing, rather than one that insured life-long financial security for him and his family. To avoid the same fate as Livingston, it is common for top collegiate talent to sit out of particularly challenging games. Recently, former Ohio State football player Nick Bosa decided to sit out of the remainder of his final season to prevent injury. Confident of his projection of being a priority in the NFL draft, Bosa did not believe it was worth the risk to play in college. Thus, Ohio State lost its best player for the biggest games of the year. Bosa’s decision to leave college paid off as he was selected second overall in the NFL draft and received a $33 million contract.
Since the NBA requires players to be removed from high school for one year in order to play, top athletes are essentially forced to attend college for one year, only to bolt for the opportunity to be compensated fairly. In fact, the number of athletes who choose to leave after one year has risen dramatically since 2011 when only five schools lost their star players to the professional league. That number has nearly quadrupled in eight years as an astonishing 19 schools have seen their best players walk out the door the first chance they get. The players who leave after one year are typically the best talent in the nation, so the NCAA rarely retains its most talented players for extended periods of time.
Manifestation of Problem 2
It is proven that not only is promoting diversity the ethical thing to do, but it significantly impacts the organization in other ways. A study by McKinsey & Co. proves that “companies in the top quartile for racial and ethnic diversity are 35 percent more likely to have financial returns above their respective national industry medians,” while companies in the top quartile for gender diversity are “15 percent more likely to have financial returns above their respective national industry medians.” On the flip side, “companies in the bottom quartile for both ethnicity and race are statistically less likely to achieve above-average financial returns than the average companies in the data set”. Further research shows that a strong level of diversity within the company results in lower turnover and higher organizational commitment. Based on these facts, it is clear that the NCAA is potentially losing out on higher profits, lower turnover, and higher organizational commitment.
Long-Term Impacts
The two main problems the NCAA faces, compensation rules and lack of diversity, negatively impact the organization currently. However, if these problems are not properly managed immediately, the current impacts could expand in propensity and present new obstacles.
Though recruited players come from significantly diverse backgrounds, allowing the NCAA staff (particularly the coaches) to remain of a homogeneous demographic is adverse to the NCAA’s potential of performing better through the diversity of staff. Diversity is valuable for several reasons. Primarily it is beneficial because, logically, a more diverse group of people bring a broader range of ideas and solutions to the table; on average a diverse group performs better than a non-diverse group. One of the three requirements of good leaders is that they must be committed to diversity programs throughout all levels of the organization. If the diversity problem in the NCAA is allowed to expand in the future, the NCAA will be even further hindered from its potential.
Turnover in the NCAA takes the form of college athletes participating less or leaving the organization to play professionally. In addition to the preliminary lack of compensation, the NCAA also has arbitrary rules regarding players making outside business deals, such as selling autographs or partnering with equipment companies like Nike. This promotes turnover even more, which is unfavorable to the organization. As more alternate routes for making profit present themselves to college athletes, more and more of them will leave the NCAA if it is not addressed by the organization. For example, as mentioned in the problem section, players may participate overseas or go directly to professional leagues out of high school to avoid being uncompensated by the NCAA. Additionally, if players want to preserve their bodies for the professional league (where they will be compensated) by avoiding participation during college sports seasons, viewers may become frustrated by the lack of star players’ time playing in the games. Each of these possibilities could significantly degrade its main revenue source - viewership. Ratings could decline if the NCAA’s best athletes are overseas, sitting out, or avoiding the NCAA entirely; this is clearly a threat.
Causes
Lack of diversity and arbitrary compensation rules are caused by different aspects. Cause of a lack of diversity in organizations is complex and unclear; however, it is clear that it is immoral and adverse to the company’s growth and goals. Arbitrary compensation rules have a bit more of a visible root source: the NCAA gets to keep more of its revenue.
The NCAA has monopolized college sports. The organization is extremely successful across the country and has become overly concerned with protecting its abundant profits. The 2017-2018 fiscal year marked the first time in the organization's history that it generated over one billion dollars. Paying athletes a salary would cost the organization a great deal of money, which is evident simply by looking at the number of college athletes throughout the nation (460,000). The NCAA argues that it wants to hold on to the revenue for themselves so that it can continue to grow instead of having to give up a majority of its profits. Another potential cause of the lack of diversity in the NCAA is the existing racial and gender preferences for white male coaches. There seems to be a pool of white men of whom colleges exclusively look at when hiring for vacant coaching and athletic director positions; they’re primarily experienced collegiate coaches. This lack of diversity is not new - therefore, most experienced coaches are white males. If a school seeks an experienced coach, they’re likely to pick a white male. This problem needs to be addressed by giving opportunities to females and to people of other ethnicities. It seems that the NCAA’s current hiring system has failed to do this because it is run predominantly by white males, thus leaving out the perspectives of people of other genders and races.
Solution One - Players’ Union
The NCAA can prevent athletes from pursuing other paths to professional sports and increase the quality of student’s lives by allowing student-athletes to form a players’ union. While the union would not necessarily be the same as one representing trade workers, a collective assembly of student-athletes with the power to bargain with NCAA executives could increase the productivity and well-being of all members of the NCAA. This organization would function similarly to the NFL Players’ Association or the NBA Association, in that it would defend the athletes’ rights, protect their privileges, and represent them in other matters. Further, a union would positively influence the athletes’ attitudes towards the NCAA because it would give the athletes more power in the organization. This would likely result in more student-athletes choosing college athletics over other developmental paths, which would prevent so much turnover.
Implementation of Solution One
A council of executives would exist within the union. Representatives would speak on behalf of the athletes in affairs concerning their pay, working conditions, compensation rules. This council would meet with NCAA executives once a month, during which the athletes’ representatives would express grievances and discuss improvements in student-athletes’ working conditions. The athletes’ representatives would then communicate with college sports departments about the recent developments. All student-athletes would be able to express their sentiments about policies directly to representatives so that they could properly articulate the interests of the athletes in the monthly meeting.
To address diversity issues, a committee on diversity would be created within the union. This committee would be comprised of appointed executives and university employees (human resources, potentially), and it would convene periodically to discuss potential methods of increasing both surface-level and deep-level diversity at the executive level of the NCAA. This committee would report on racial, gender, and socioeconomic disparities that affect student-athletes negatively. It would also propose long-term solutions, like hiring more diverse employees.
The union would also represent athletes in financial disputes. With the implementation of revenue for student-athletes, the union would be instrumental in negotiating wages. The union’s representatives and NCAA executives would have to agree on a set wage to pay student-athletes. However, this set wage would be different based on the sport, so the union would have to appoint different representatives for each sport to ensure they know the specific sport’s revenue and expenses well enough to accurately engage in financial matters. Financial representatives of the union would meet with NCAA executives at least once a year to adjust wages for inflation and increases or decreases in revenue. This would ensure that player wages are fair and proportional to current revenues generated by the sport. With a union protecting players in financial matters, student-athletes will have a higher level of trust with the NCAA.
Solution Two - Financial Compensation
Another large factor contributing to the turnover problem is that multiple professional sports associations require athletes to attend college before they are eligible for the draft. The NCAA argues that college is in an optional path for athletes and thus they should not have to pay its athletes. The organization also believes that it offers a massive national spotlight for athletes to develop themselves before playing professionally, which is undeniably true. However, the NFL and the NBA require athletes to play three years and one year of college sports, respectively, before they can play professionally. The athletes now have to play in college and thus put their bodies at risk of injury despite a lack of compensation. Multiple highly touted high school stars with a high potential of turning professional have experienced career-ending injuries while in college and thus have lost on possible earnings in the professional world. Further, having to attend college pushes the riches of professional sports out additional years for low-income athletes and their families who are desperately in need. If the NCAA simply paid their athletes, this would no longer be an issue.
Another part of the solution for the issue could be the implementation of a revenue-sharing system. The revenue-sharing system would allocate a percentage of revenue generated by the NCAA each year to players. The percentages would be decided upon by both the NCAA and the player's union. Although this would likely be the easiest option for compensating athletes, the fact that not all sports generate the same amount of revenue is a large flaw in this solution, as a star football player at a well known school likely generates more revenue per capita than a bowler at a smaller school. Another solution for this issue would be allowing players to secure their own sources of compensation through various advertisements, spokesperson positions, and sponsorships. This solution would likely appeal to schools, the NCAA, and more well-known athletes at the cost of alienating athletes in smaller schools playing more obscure sports. Students playing popular sports at schools with larger fan bases would be provided with more and larger promotional opportunities than students playing less popular sports at smaller schools. As such, these lesser known athletes would not endorse this solution because of the difficulties that they would face under this system. Both of these solutions have various pros and cons, but with a well-represented player’s union, the solution that benefits the most athletes would be chosen.
Implementation of Solution Two
The creation of a viable revenue-sharing system that is both accurate and reliable will likely take months to fully create. First, the NCAA and schools would be required to report the amount of revenue made from sporting events monthly, and those numbers would be compared to each other in order to ensure correct reporting. From there, a third party would be hired to audit the revenues and finances of the NCAA on a monthly basis. Finally, the agreed upon percentage would be dispersed to the athletic departments of all of its member schools and would make its way to the athletes through either a check or direct deposit. After several years, the number of audits would be reduced from monthly to quarterly to biannually in order to reduce expenses. However, the important aspect that this reduction in audits is contingent on is a mutual trust between athletes and the NCAA. Further, smaller schools and the NCAA will likely be unwilling or unable to set aside a lump sum numbering in the millions of dollars to be disbursed to students. The main reasoning behind this would be financially motivated, since a lump sum payment would impact the financial statements of the NCAA and schools, causing the NCAA and schools to look less profitable. Moreover, the payment of a multi-million dollar sum would be a huge financial strain on small schools with smaller endowments. Thus, the most logical and reasonable solution is to pay out the revenue share in a manner similar to a salary. Due to the relatively high amount of moving parts and channels that money would be moved through, all of the parties involved in this system would have to ensure that they perform their role effectively, or this system would fall apart.
Due to the number of moving parts that is present in this solution, the system would have to be managed by a group of leaders that are able to coordinate complex projects in a way that covers all of the bases. As such, some sort of cross-functional team would have to be formed in order to ensure implementation goes smoothly. A cross-functional team would be preferred because of the amount of information that would need to flow internally, as well as the fact that the leadership would need to constantly develop new ideas and solve issues that arise. Further, the sheer size of the NCAA would result in incredible amounts of red tape, so team members with experience in different fields would be crucial in navigating that. Additionally, because thousands of student-athletes come from diverse backgrounds each year, the leadership team would need to reflect that diversity. As such, the members would have to be stringently selected, and team members with diverse backgrounds must be present so that all perspectives would be included. If this is not the case, large holes would be present in the implementation, and certain groups of athletes would be severely marginalized. This same notion must also be adopted by the player’s union so that the terms they negotiate would represent the entire student-athlete population.
Another form of compensating athletes is allowing them to secure their own contracts regarding promotions or sponsorships. Clearly, this would be a relatively large departure from current norms, so this system would likely be slowly integrated into the current collegiate athletics landscape. In year one of this system, athletes would be allowed to secure one promotion or sponsorship, with that number increasing at a predetermined rate as put forth jointly by the player’s union and the NCAA. This is done to ensure that athletes do not overcommit to sponsorships and begin to disregard school. Further, the NCAA would also ensure that all of its athletes wanting to enter into these contracts have a responsible agent that is held accountable for their actions. As such, this solution would likely make larger waves in the current landscape and would take longer to fully integrate. However, because it comes at little to no cost for institutions and the NCAA, it would likely be preferable. One key issue would be the disparity in earning potential for athletes, as athletes of higher status would be able to secure much more lucrative contracts. As such, one solution that could alleviate this is the imposition of a tax on the earnings of athletes based on a stepwise scale. The tax revenue from that would then be distributed to student-athletes in less popular sports. This solution would be similar to unemployment wages paid by the government. Athletes would still have scholarships, so lower-status athletes that may not have much leverage in the form of recognizability will still be given the free education and the various benefits associated with that. This would additionally solve the core issue present in the current system, which is a lack of loyalty by athletes and the disillusionment of said athletes due to lack of pay that is commensurate with the amount of revenue they bring in.
Problem 1 - Refusal To Pay Its Athletes
The NCAA’s financial success (it brings in $1.06 billion in revenue) is not exactly morally earned; the organization refuses to pay the individuals who are mainly responsible for generating that revenue, the student-athletes. This issue is especially prevalent in college football and college basketball in which athletes are not allowed to enter a professional league until they have been in college for three years (football) or have been removed from high school for one year (basketball). Because of this, unless athletes play overseas, they have no way of profiting off their talents (and their work) until they have met a specific eligibility standard.
Problem 2 - Lack Of Diversity At The Executive Level
Restrictions are not the only issue the NCAA faces. The organization’s hiring practices have come under immense scrutiny for its severe lack of minority representation. The statistics regarding diversity are alarming, as shown by the graph published by the NCAA below. Most notably, head coaches and athletic directors are white 86 and 85 percent of the time respectively. The percentage of white staff remains in the 80s for other important positions, such as associate and assistant athletic director and assistant head coach. (Irick, 1)
Manifestation Of Problem 1
As a result of the lack of pay and diversity, the NCAA is currently faced with extremely low organizational commitment and resentment from its athletes across the nation. Largely due to their lack of compensation, it is common for the best college athletes to leave school early (even after one year in some cases) and to avoid participating in crucial games in order to avoid injury and to preserve their bodies for their professional careers.
This problem has seen significant racial ramifications as well. Tennessee Congressman Steve Cohen pointed out that by “keeping kids, who are more likely to be African-American than not, from playing professional basketball and football when they can help their families and communities immediately” is wrong (Thamel, 1). Many athletes come from poor families; risking a professional career due to injury while they are not paid can rob them of the opportunity to lift their families out of poverty. To make matters worse, predominantly white sports like hockey and baseball do not have the same eligibility restrictions as football and basketball. This is an example of privilege.
Randy Livingston is a prime example of a player who was affected by these policies. Although he was universally recognized as the nation’s top high school player, he tore his right anterior cruciate ligament during college before making the NBA. As a result, he potentially lost out on hundreds of millions of dollars because he got hurt on a contract that paid him nothing, rather than one that insured life-long financial security for him and his family. To avoid the same fate as Livingston, it is common for top collegiate talent to sit out of particularly challenging games. Recently, former Ohio State football player Nick Bosa decided to sit out of the remainder of his final season to prevent injury. Confident of his projection of being a priority in the NFL draft, Bosa did not believe it was worth the risk to play in college. Thus, Ohio State lost its best player for the biggest games of the year. Bosa’s decision to leave college paid off as he was selected second overall in the NFL draft and received a $33 million contract.
Since the NBA requires players to be removed from high school for one year in order to play, top athletes are essentially forced to attend college for one year, only to bolt for the opportunity to be compensated fairly. In fact, the number of athletes who choose to leave after one year has risen dramatically since 2011 when only five schools lost their star players to the professional league. That number has nearly quadrupled in eight years as an astonishing 19 schools have seen their best players walk out the door the first chance they get. The players who leave after one year are typically the best talent in the nation, so the NCAA rarely retains its most talented players for extended periods of time.
Manifestation of Problem 2
It is proven that not only is promoting diversity the ethical thing to do, but it significantly impacts the organization in other ways. A study by McKinsey & Co. proves that “companies in the top quartile for racial and ethnic diversity are 35 percent more likely to have financial returns above their respective national industry medians,” while companies in the top quartile for gender diversity are “15 percent more likely to have financial returns above their respective national industry medians.” On the flip side, “companies in the bottom quartile for both ethnicity and race are statistically less likely to achieve above-average financial returns than the average companies in the data set”. Further research shows that a strong level of diversity within the company results in lower turnover and higher organizational commitment. Based on these facts, it is clear that the NCAA is potentially losing out on higher profits, lower turnover, and higher organizational commitment.
Long-Term Impacts
The two main problems the NCAA faces, compensation rules and lack of diversity, negatively impact the organization currently. However, if these problems are not properly managed immediately, the current impacts could expand in propensity and present new obstacles.
Though recruited players come from significantly diverse backgrounds, allowing the NCAA staff (particularly the coaches) to remain of a homogeneous demographic is adverse to the NCAA’s potential of performing better through the diversity of staff. Diversity is valuable for several reasons. Primarily it is beneficial because, logically, a more diverse group of people bring a broader range of ideas and solutions to the table; on average a diverse group performs better than a non-diverse group. One of the three requirements of good leaders is that they must be committed to diversity programs throughout all levels of the organization. If the diversity problem in the NCAA is allowed to expand in the future, the NCAA will be even further hindered from its potential.
Turnover in the NCAA takes the form of college athletes participating less or leaving the organization to play professionally. In addition to the preliminary lack of compensation, the NCAA also has arbitrary rules regarding players making outside business deals, such as selling autographs or partnering with equipment companies like Nike. This promotes turnover even more, which is unfavorable to the organization. As more alternate routes for making profit present themselves to college athletes, more and more of them will leave the NCAA if it is not addressed by the organization. For example, as mentioned in the problem section, players may participate overseas or go directly to professional leagues out of high school to avoid being uncompensated by the NCAA. Additionally, if players want to preserve their bodies for the professional league (where they will be compensated) by avoiding participation during college sports seasons, viewers may become frustrated by the lack of star players’ time playing in the games. Each of these possibilities could significantly degrade its main revenue source - viewership. Ratings could decline if the NCAA’s best athletes are overseas, sitting out, or avoiding the NCAA entirely; this is clearly a threat.
Causes
Lack of diversity and arbitrary compensation rules are caused by different aspects. Cause of a lack of diversity in organizations is complex and unclear; however, it is clear that it is immoral and adverse to the company’s growth and goals. Arbitrary compensation rules have a bit more of a visible root source: the NCAA gets to keep more of its revenue.
The NCAA has monopolized college sports. The organization is extremely successful across the country and has become overly concerned with protecting its abundant profits. The 2017-2018 fiscal year marked the first time in the organization's history that it generated over one billion dollars. Paying athletes a salary would cost the organization a great deal of money, which is evident simply by looking at the number of college athletes throughout the nation (460,000). The NCAA argues that it wants to hold on to the revenue for themselves so that it can continue to grow instead of having to give up a majority of its profits. Another potential cause of the lack of diversity in the NCAA is the existing racial and gender preferences for white male coaches. There seems to be a pool of white men of whom colleges exclusively look at when hiring for vacant coaching and athletic director positions; they’re primarily experienced collegiate coaches. This lack of diversity is not new - therefore, most experienced coaches are white males. If a school seeks an experienced coach, they’re likely to pick a white male. This problem needs to be addressed by giving opportunities to females and to people of other ethnicities. It seems that the NCAA’s current hiring system has failed to do this because it is run predominantly by white males, thus leaving out the perspectives of people of other genders and races.
Solution One - Players’ Union
The NCAA can prevent athletes from pursuing other paths to professional sports and increase the quality of student’s lives by allowing student-athletes to form a players’ union. While the union would not necessarily be the same as one representing trade workers, a collective assembly of student-athletes with the power to bargain with NCAA executives could increase the productivity and well-being of all members of the NCAA. This organization would function similarly to the NFL Players’ Association or the NBA Association, in that it would defend the athletes’ rights, protect their privileges, and represent them in other matters. Further, a union would positively influence the athletes’ attitudes towards the NCAA because it would give the athletes more power in the organization. This would likely result in more student-athletes choosing college athletics over other developmental paths, which would prevent so much turnover.
Implementation of Solution One
A council of executives would exist within the union. Representatives would speak on behalf of the athletes in affairs concerning their pay, working conditions, compensation rules. This council would meet with NCAA executives once a month, during which the athletes’ representatives would express grievances and discuss improvements in student-athletes’ working conditions. The athletes’ representatives would then communicate with college sports departments about the recent developments. All student-athletes would be able to express their sentiments about policies directly to representatives so that they could properly articulate the interests of the athletes in the monthly meeting.
To address diversity issues, a committee on diversity would be created within the union. This committee would be comprised of appointed executives and university employees (human resources, potentially), and it would convene periodically to discuss potential methods of increasing both surface-level and deep-level diversity at the executive level of the NCAA. This committee would report on racial, gender, and socioeconomic disparities that affect student-athletes negatively. It would also propose long-term solutions, like hiring more diverse employees.
The union would also represent athletes in financial disputes. With the implementation of revenue for student-athletes, the union would be instrumental in negotiating wages. The union’s representatives and NCAA executives would have to agree on a set wage to pay student-athletes. However, this set wage would be different based on the sport, so the union would have to appoint different representatives for each sport to ensure they know the specific sport’s revenue and expenses well enough to accurately engage in financial matters. Financial representatives of the union would meet with NCAA executives at least once a year to adjust wages for inflation and increases or decreases in revenue. This would ensure that player wages are fair and proportional to current revenues generated by the sport. With a union protecting players in financial matters, student-athletes will have a higher level of trust with the NCAA.
Solution Two - Financial Compensation
Another large factor contributing to the turnover problem is that multiple professional sports associations require athletes to attend college before they are eligible for the draft. The NCAA argues that college is in an optional path for athletes and thus they should not have to pay its athletes. The organization also believes that it offers a massive national spotlight for athletes to develop themselves before playing professionally, which is undeniably true. However, the NFL and the NBA require athletes to play three years and one year of college sports, respectively, before they can play professionally. The athletes now have to play in college and thus put their bodies at risk of injury despite a lack of compensation. Multiple highly touted high school stars with a high potential of turning professional have experienced career-ending injuries while in college and thus have lost on possible earnings in the professional world. Further, having to attend college pushes the riches of professional sports out additional years for low-income athletes and their families who are desperately in need. If the NCAA simply paid their athletes, this would no longer be an issue.
Another part of the solution for the issue could be the implementation of a revenue-sharing system. The revenue-sharing system would allocate a percentage of revenue generated by the NCAA each year to players. The percentages would be decided upon by both the NCAA and the player's union. Although this would likely be the easiest option for compensating athletes, the fact that not all sports generate the same amount of revenue is a large flaw in this solution, as a star football player at a well known school likely generates more revenue per capita than a bowler at a smaller school. Another solution for this issue would be allowing players to secure their own sources of compensation through various advertisements, spokesperson positions, and sponsorships. This solution would likely appeal to schools, the NCAA, and more well-known athletes at the cost of alienating athletes in smaller schools playing more obscure sports. Students playing popular sports at schools with larger fan bases would be provided with more and larger promotional opportunities than students playing less popular sports at smaller schools. As such, these lesser known athletes would not endorse this solution because of the difficulties that they would face under this system. Both of these solutions have various pros and cons, but with a well-represented player’s union, the solution that benefits the most athletes would be chosen.
Implementation of Solution Two
The creation of a viable revenue-sharing system that is both accurate and reliable will likely take months to fully create. First, the NCAA and schools would be required to report the amount of revenue made from sporting events monthly, and those numbers would be compared to each other in order to ensure correct reporting. From there, a third party would be hired to audit the revenues and finances of the NCAA on a monthly basis. Finally, the agreed upon percentage would be dispersed to the athletic departments of all of its member schools and would make its way to the athletes through either a check or direct deposit. After several years, the number of audits would be reduced from monthly to quarterly to biannually in order to reduce expenses. However, the important aspect that this reduction in audits is contingent on is a mutual trust between athletes and the NCAA. Further, smaller schools and the NCAA will likely be unwilling or unable to set aside a lump sum numbering in the millions of dollars to be disbursed to students. The main reasoning behind this would be financially motivated, since a lump sum payment would impact the financial statements of the NCAA and schools, causing the NCAA and schools to look less profitable. Moreover, the payment of a multi-million dollar sum would be a huge financial strain on small schools with smaller endowments. Thus, the most logical and reasonable solution is to pay out the revenue share in a manner similar to a salary. Due to the relatively high amount of moving parts and channels that money would be moved through, all of the parties involved in this system would have to ensure that they perform their role effectively, or this system would fall apart.
Due to the number of moving parts that is present in this solution, the system would have to be managed by a group of leaders that are able to coordinate complex projects in a way that covers all of the bases. As such, some sort of cross-functional team would have to be formed in order to ensure implementation goes smoothly. A cross-functional team would be preferred because of the amount of information that would need to flow internally, as well as the fact that the leadership would need to constantly develop new ideas and solve issues that arise. Further, the sheer size of the NCAA would result in incredible amounts of red tape, so team members with experience in different fields would be crucial in navigating that. Additionally, because thousands of student-athletes come from diverse backgrounds each year, the leadership team would need to reflect that diversity. As such, the members would have to be stringently selected, and team members with diverse backgrounds must be present so that all perspectives would be included. If this is not the case, large holes would be present in the implementation, and certain groups of athletes would be severely marginalized. This same notion must also be adopted by the player’s union so that the terms they negotiate would represent the entire student-athlete population.
Another form of compensating athletes is allowing them to secure their own contracts regarding promotions or sponsorships. Clearly, this would be a relatively large departure from current norms, so this system would likely be slowly integrated into the current collegiate athletics landscape. In year one of this system, athletes would be allowed to secure one promotion or sponsorship, with that number increasing at a predetermined rate as put forth jointly by the player’s union and the NCAA. This is done to ensure that athletes do not overcommit to sponsorships and begin to disregard school. Further, the NCAA would also ensure that all of its athletes wanting to enter into these contracts have a responsible agent that is held accountable for their actions. As such, this solution would likely make larger waves in the current landscape and would take longer to fully integrate. However, because it comes at little to no cost for institutions and the NCAA, it would likely be preferable. One key issue would be the disparity in earning potential for athletes, as athletes of higher status would be able to secure much more lucrative contracts. As such, one solution that could alleviate this is the imposition of a tax on the earnings of athletes based on a stepwise scale. The tax revenue from that would then be distributed to student-athletes in less popular sports. This solution would be similar to unemployment wages paid by the government. Athletes would still have scholarships, so lower-status athletes that may not have much leverage in the form of recognizability will still be given the free education and the various benefits associated with that. This would additionally solve the core issue present in the current system, which is a lack of loyalty by athletes and the disillusionment of said athletes due to lack of pay that is commensurate with the amount of revenue they bring in.
