Passing the Buck

Should college athletes be eligible to receive financial compensation? And if so, what should be the rules and regulations regarding this? This has and continues to be a question of debate that continues to generate heated controversy.

Initially taking on this question, it seems easier to generate answers that favor allowing for financial compensation than to oppose the allowance of such happenings. It seems only fair that those who have the ability to make money, should not be discouraged from doing so in ways that are completely legal and ethical in our capitalist society. If there are people willing to pay college athletes for their performance abilities and/or personal endorsements, how is it ethical to prohibit these individuals from taking advantage of what they have rightfully earned? Within educational institutions, other programs allow students to be paid for work that they do through jobs that they perform on college campuses and from performing and utilizing skills that they are taught at such institutions. Athletes have the ability to generate potentially large amounts of revenues arising from media endorsements, ticket sales to events, increasing merchandise sales, etc. If this is the case, why then should the NCAA prohibit these individuals from benefitting financially from profits they helped to generate?

There are those who argue still though that college athletes should not be allowed to receive financial compensation. People taking this side of the debate may argue that colleges and universities serve the role of providing education. Should athletes representing these organizations be allowed to be paid for their natural physical abilities, this would take away from the original and sole purpose for which these institutions were established. Because this is the purpose of colleges and universities, these people may also argue that any and all profits generated by athletic programs should be used to towards enhancements of academics at these institutions. There are also those who argue that NCAA sports are the highest level of certain sports that remain pure. Pure, in this sense, meaning not governed by financial dominance and/or financial competition. The last point seems very hard to make a strong argument completely in favor of though due to corporate sponsorships of popular and top-ranking athletic programs. Corporate sponsors not only provide funding and equipment for these programs, but also compound the popularity and success of these programs and draw in highly skilled athletes to these highly sponsored programs allowing them to retain the upper hand.

Seemingly, though there are certain aspects of prohibiting college athletes from being paid that are within reason, those in favor of seem more logical and ethical by allowing these individuals to be able to reap the benefits produced by their individual abilities contributed. Cases in the past have generated extreme controversy, such as Oklahoma's starting quarterback, Rhett Bomar, who received financial compensation from a corporate establishment for work that he supposedly did not do. It seems logical to view college athletes as employees of the institutions they represent, especially if the programs in which the athletes perform in generate profits for that institution.

We Reserve the Right

Being a student at the University of Texas in Austin, it's hard to avoid the excitement (or annoyances depending on your take) that the Longhorn football team brings to campus each Fall. Admittedly, I myself am a part of the huge fan base that enjoys partaking in the festivities surrounding the games played at DKR Memorial Stadium each season. This season, in addition to being a season ticket holder, I also had the opportunity to purchase a parking pass for one of the lots that permits tailgating very near the stadium. Although the money spent on my student season ticket was far less than the amount spent on the parking pass, the activities involved with the tailgate ran by myself and a few friends assuredly increased the enjoyment of being a Longhorn football fan this season. I can't deny the fact that the enjoyment of tailgating this season was in part due to the consumption of cold beverages (containing alcohol of course).

For numerous reasons, fans are seen as being an integral part of sports and, in some regards, considered just as important as the players of the game. Fans not only provide support for the players of the game, but also contribute to creating excitement and capturing the attention of people who may otherwise not be interested in the actual game being played. By hosting a tailgate this season, I can attest that many of the people who attended the tailgate who had little initial interest in college football fell victim to this sort of contagion this past Fall. While reflecting upon the reasoning behind my enjoyment of having a prime spot to tailgate at the UT football games this year, I realized that there was one ingredient in the mix, that if taken away, would have trimmed down the level of attendance at the tailgates, and also the attention span and perhaps even the overall satisfaction of those in attendance. Despite having the amenities of satellite television and some seriously delicious home-cooked food, the most essential ingredient that can not be overlooked turned out to be alcohol; in particular, beer! Furthering upon this, alcohol seemed to be such a key ingredient at these events (which were supposedly based on the football games being played by UT), that several people with tickets they had paid for to watch the game inside the stadium, located a mere 50 yards from our tailgate, bypassed their opportunities to watch the games from their seats in the stadium. When asked why they chose this option, the general responses mainly involved the fact that alcohol consumption is prohibited inside the stadium.

Considering this scenario led me to do some brief research on the rules involving alcohol and NCAA sporting events. While doing so, I came across an article in USAToday outlining the NCAA's take on alcohol at its sporting events. This article not only provides information regarding the NCAA's regulations regarding alcohol, but also defines some of the arguments related to the topic at hand. Even after reading the article, I find it hard to discern as to whether or not there is a right or wrong answer to whether or not the NCAA should or should not allow alcohol at its sporting events. Currently, the NCAA leaves the decision-making power to individual members and establishments within the organization.

On one hand, it is clearly seen that NCAA establishments that choose to prohibit the consumption and sale of alcohol at its events have the best intentions of spectators in mind. Undeniably, colleges are the home to the majority of binge drinking that does take place within the nation. Each year, unfortunately, there are many deaths that occur involving alcohol. By not allowing alcohol consumption or sales at events, establishments are doing their part in discouraging irresponsible decisions that may lead to such tragedies. Prohibiting alcohol sales and consumptions at NCAA events also helps to promote a clean image of both sports, athletes, and the organizations represented in these events. One can not blame organizations and establishments connected to the NCAA for taking this side of the argument with issues such as these as their basis for decision making.

Not surprisingly, however, there is another side to the argument. Alcohol and the companies that produce it are large profit centers. NCAA establishments that prohibit alcohol sales, consumption, and/or sponsorships are potentially loosing revenue. Generally, the populous of most colleges are populated by about 50% of students of or beyond the legal age limit to purchase and consume alcohol. Despite banning the sale and promotion of alcohol during events or at establishments does, by any means, completely end event spectators from consuming alcohol if that is their intention. Taking this into consideration, it seems that organizations are in fact doing more harm to themselves by discouraging potential revenues from alcohol, as well as potentially loosing revenue that could be generated through ticket sales to those who would attend certain events if alcohol was not prohibited.

NCAA organizations that choose to ban alcohol sales and consumption at events seems to be taking a reasonable course of action in reducing their liabilities, as alcohol is related to many injuries and deaths annually. What seems to be less logical though are the choices made by NCAA organizations that choose to prohibit advertising and media both onsite and offsite by alcohol companies during sporting events. Accepting sponsorships from alcohol companies does not involve any direct liabilities for the NCAA organizations. It seems even more ludicrous that NCAA organizations may decline ads promoting responsible drinking on the notion that such ads are being paid for by the producers and distributors of alcoholic beverages. It seems as if the organizations wanted to maintain a clean image, it would seek alcohol promotions that promote safe and responsible consumption of alcohol, considering that completely putting an end to alcohol consumption amongst its spectators is quite certainly an unrealistic objective.

At this point, the NCAA's decision to allow organizations and establishments affiliated with the association the right to make their own individual decisions is completely rational and logical. Whether or not this stance is entertaining the fans however is a question that will remain in debate.

jm