The clock is running out on the NCAA to find a viable compensation solution for college sports in America.
Over the past several years, colleges, including Mississippi’s two largest in Ole Miss and Mississippi State, have been hit with multiple penalties in pay-for-play scandals.
At the heart of each of these offenses is the argument over whether college athletes should be paid for their on-field efforts.
This past week, California signed a law that will allow college athletes to receive compensation for the use of their images and likenesses. The law also allows them to hire agents and sign endorsement deals.
The NCAA’s statement to the press in the wake of this bill was weak, and it shows that the massive organization has no real plan to pursue a consensus on this issue, which could mean real trouble when it comes to protecting the purity of college sports.
"As a membership organization, the NCAA agrees changes are needed to continue to support student-athletes, but improvement needs to happen on a national level through the NCAA's rules-making process. Unfortunately, this new law already is creating confusion for current and future student-athletes, coaches, administrators and campuses, and not just in California," the NCAA said as part of its statement.
I would argue that the confusion stems from the NCAA’s refusal to come to terms with the fact that its more high-profile Division I sports like football and basketball have changed so drastically from an economic standpoint over just the past two decades, that a meaningful conversation about college sports compensation is needed
College football, in particular, has become a billion-dollar sport, with many SEC teams leading the pack in annual revenues and profits that hit the tens of millions.
Coaches like Alabama’s Nick Saban are paid millions of dollars, and the current system even allows for boosters to pay off his mortgage, but any attempt to provide a poor college player with a vehicle or apartment rent is strictly prohibited.
The NCAA will likely challenge the California law, and it will probably go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is the same court that ruled on the side of college football gambling a little over a year ago.
I would expect the court to rule in favor of at least the major portions of the California law as well.
It’s a no-brainer, to me, that players should at least be compensated for jersey sales and any other product that bears the likeness of the individual player.
Even if California is on the right track, complications will arise from a blanket enforcement by the courts.
One in particular is finding equity in the solution.
There are a lot of college sports, including tennis, track and field and cross country, to name a few, that have not, and seemingly will not, benefit from the millions raked in by the football and men’s basketball programs at American colleges.
Baseball is a rising economic force in college sports, but even its scholarships have been panned as anemic compared to football and basketball.
If football players start to get paid, and many of them will conceivably get much more than others, surely the soccer players will be the next to sue in order to get fair compensation.
And will the perceived gender pay gap in America translate to the world of college sports?
You can bet money on that being a major issue.
These are just a couple of the complicated reasons why the NCAA has not effectively addressed pay-for-play, but it’s not going to be a good excuse for very long.
College football, in particular, is becoming much like the maligned televangelists who sport high salaries, private jets, multiple mansions and decked out Mercedes, while hiding behind a nonprofit status.
The NCAA can fix this image, along with the problem itself.
If it doesn’t, the courts will.
