Tyler Stearns |
The NCAA is starting to lose authoritative power over collegiate sports. Earlier this year, in a court case versus UVA (Virginia) and UT (Tennessee), the NCAA was stripped of its ability to govern how schools use NIL for athletes. Since then, it has been announced that schools like Oregon, with a large athletic endowment from Nike (since Phil Knight is a former Duck), have been given the rights to unlimited NIL resources. We have also seen schools like Baylor and Ohio State come out and uncover the secret to their recruiting success, "we are paying players." We have also seen Iowa, a school that doesn't necessarily have access to a treasure chest of money to pay players with, self-report their NIL violations. This will become more common since the NCAA has lost its power to control the NIL spending of schools.
Recently, though, the NCAA has begun to face another issue. College athletics have always been considered "amateur." Though true, sports like football can bring in a considerable amount of money to an institution. Alabama football generated $130 million in revenue last season (AL.com). This number helps a school's sports programs and can also go towards the school's scholarship fund. This money is significant, and the majority of the credit goes to the players
The court recently ruled that college athletes can be considered employees. Though there are many more stages to this trial, the decision is likely to pass. Different numbers have been proposed, like 2,000 dollars per month, or 10,000 dollars per year for athletes participating in an NCAA-sanctioned sport.
Even with NIL, this plan has been in the works for a long while. Before the 2021 SCOTUS ruling that stated students could benefit from their name, image, and likeness, players, coaches, and lawyers fought for compensation of student-athletes.
Many questions and issues will arise from this, though. Title IX will be rendered nearly obsolete moving forward. The goal of the ruling was to create parity amongst male and female athletes in college. With the changing economic landscape in college athletics, though, most female sports and players are not as relevant as male sports and players, meaning they have had less access to NIL opportunities. And since football is the only sport not covered under the law, and football is the highest revenue-producing sport in college athletics for most schools, does it make sense for an All-American quarterback to be paid the same as a small-school female gymnast? Many could make the argument that the gymnast wouldn't have access to NIL resources similar to the football player, but the football player would still be inclined to believe that their economic effect on the school would warrant a higher "salary" from the institution itself.
Contracts, salaries, and agents are other important aspects that the defendants in the trial must take into account. Similar to the possible Title IX disruption, would players (by themselves or with agents) begin to negotiate contracts? Would players on the same team make different amounts of money per year relative to their economic impact on the program? How do you find the economic impact that an individual athlete makes on a program?
Another effect of the court case is reduced roster sizes. There are 85 scholarship spots on football rosters, and reduced sizes for all other sports due to Title IX (a male sport, like basketball, must have the same amount of scholarships as women's basketball, and the same with each sport). Now, with the new court case, roster sizes in football specifically may be cut down to 115 players ( 85 scholarship, 30 non-scholarship). Other sports would be affected, but considering the already small roster sizes of all sports that aren't football, it wouldn't affect the other teams heavily enough.
For football, though, smaller rosters would affect depth and make injuries much more pronounced. Less practice players means less opportunity for rest, leading to a higher chance of injury. Slimmed-down rosters would be a major blow to player safety too.
College sports, specifically football, haven't seen this much change in the history of their existence. NIL and conference realignment have already shaken up collegiate athletics, but with the possibility of players being considered employees, we may see the most monumental change yet. Change is good, and it needs to happen in an evolving world, but too much change in too little time is bad for anything, especially college sports. At the end of the day, these are players trying to get an education, make a name for themselves, and hopefully get drafted in their respective sports. But if the NCAA loses all power and players become workers, we will see the line between professional and collegiate sports slowly erased.
Comentários