docx

School

Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Nairobi *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

421

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

23

Uploaded by GeneralUniverseOwl24

Report
1 What are the ethical and socially responsible challenges of colleges paying athletes and for athletes? Student Name Tutors Name Institutional Affiliations Course Date
2 What are the ethical and socially responsible challenges of colleges paying athletes and for athletes? History of college exploiting athletes: Social responsibility vs. profit. For more than just amusing spectators and giving a platform for physical expression, sports are a means of promoting and maintaining cultural values. The identical societal ideals that are portrayed as worthy of preservation may be challenged via sports as a means of cultural resistance. Sports, therefore, are arenas for ideological battle. In particular, dominating types of sports activities frequently reinforce prevailing cultural beliefs, which sustain the social inequalities inherent in governing race, class, and gender relations. College sports are a dynamic site of opposition and recurrence that spans a wide range of social and geographic contexts with various degrees of power and impact. Sports in postsecondary learning are often recognized as effective instruments for social mobility and racial integration, among other things. Providing higher learning opportunities to a wide range of athletes, many of whom would otherwise not be able to attend college, is regarded to be the best way to ensure successful integration and mobility. According to Sanderson & Siegfried (2015) criticism of NCAA-sponsored intercollegiate athletics in the United States has focused on the NCAA, and its member schools' systematic exploitation of college athletes, especially those of color, those who participate in intercollegiate athletics are guaranteed a college degree in exchange for their efforts. This research examines the second allegation, posing new questions about the validity of the notion that universities take advantage of student-athletes. Sanderson & Siegfried (2015) argue that college athletes are exploited since they are 18 to 21 years old and that this narrative is retold every year when basketball's March Madness and college bowl games show the full extent of big-time college athletics as a commercial and cultural business. These issues, on the other hand, continue to plague the country. There has been substantial
3 growth in the number of issues with the American collegiate athletics sector during the last century. Edelman (2017 b ). Explains that when former NCAA executive director Walter Byers coined the term "student-athlete," critics decided to weigh in, provoking a discussion over the commercial exploitation of "the corporatist complex and the monetization of youthful men as well as women tread carefully against by the advancement of leisure sports at the cost of educational preferences and the quest of postsecondary learning. " It is widely accepted that football and basketball represent the biggest danger to the integrity of the institution ( Edelman, 2017 b ). The admission of individuals who are intellectually underprepared compared to their peers yet are chosen to play in these sports creates a problem for the colleges that recruit them. Despite decades of warnings and criticism, it seems that the issues in college athletics are steadfastly refusing to improve. However, despite the gloomy prospects for reform, there may be promising signals that actual change might be afoot. Shame and contempt at the current state of college athletics have shown themselves in these placards. When it comes to college athletics and their place in society at large, including American higher education, some have advocated for more openness, while others have turned openness into criticism. What started as dissenting voices has grown into widespread dissatisfaction with the avarice that pervades our various social institutions, including our universities' sacred squares, tribunals, and playing fields. Amateurism in collegiate sports, notably men's basketball and Division I football, is increasingly acknowledged by the American public. Edelman (2017 b ) is of the opinion that collegiate athletics should never be monetized, as stated by the NCAA. But it's already too late. For everyone save the players, college football has already been marketed.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
4 Public opinion, as well as the Court of law, has the power to bring about real change, as it strives to evaluate justice and moral turpitude, among college sports. Lawsuits against the NCAA, according to Meyer & Zimbalist (2020), may fundamentally alter the landscape of collegiate athletics. Antitrust breaches, the right to publicity, and taxes are just some of the issues being litigated over amateurism. College athletes would lose their citizenship privileges if an effort were made to enact a definition of amateurism that could be enforced by the government. This would be tantamount to a bill of attainder. Meyer & Zimbalist (2020) explains that with the passage of a resolution by the NCAA in 2011, December that allows providers to offer cross scholarship money and increases the amount of athletics grants in aid up to $2,000 per year based on the full cost of schooling, the NCAA has taken a significant step forward; it is possible that they feared the current and extremely lucrative job might be ending. More than ever before, college players are being exploited by the NCAA, and the NCAA's legislative attempts reflect this rising, mainstream concern for justice in college athletics. As an addition to the literature, this study provides a historical and sociological background for today's collegiate sports issues. The morality of exploitation The word "exploitation" has been misused and misunderstood in the past. xxxx points out that exploitation phenomena occur in numerous forms in intercollegiate athletics. Overtones of moral, social, and racial sensitivity may be found in it. That might be the case; however, exploitation is mainly a moral construct to be avoided. The moral–philosophical idea of exploitation may have varied implications for different groups of people depending on whether the conduct involves money or other perceived societal goods such as education. Exploitation takes place when one party gains advantages from its dealings or interactions with another that are unjust and unwarranted. Edelman (2017) liken this term to Kant's ideal moral society, where rational persons regard themselves and each other as an aim in and of
5 themselves rather than simply means. Individuals should always be seen as having worth apart from their utility, according to Edelman (2017) practical Kantian imperative. One might undoubtedly claim that schools and universities obtain unjustified advantages from student-athletes based on this moral concept of exploitation, exploiting their athletic skills as a tool to generate income and public prominence for the institution. As a result, the connection between collegiate athletes and universities may be exploitative. Of course, the athletic departments, the athletic conferences, and NCAA, and institutions that constitute these organizations might be accused of unjustly benefiting from the success of student-athletes. The collegiate sports business may be regarded as manipulating college athletes in order to fulfill its money-motivated objectives of ticket selling, garnering broadcast revenue, and growing donor support. The NCAA has been accused of being an economic cartel despite the fact that it is a non-profit academic institution. Instructors' wages, and also admin expenses, and the most up-to-date stadiums and facilities are said to be recipients of cartel earnings ( Sargent, 2022). There have been many complaints about these schools' non-profit status, which has encouraged legislators to doubt their educational objective and attempt to regulate them like other profit-motivated organizations. The morality of universities and colleges that concurrently promote the principles of learning and the commerce of intercollege sports, deriving their revenue from the athletic skill of just select students, is called into question. Issue of universities utilizing illegal methods in order to attract the best high school athletes According to Marxist theory, exploitation may be measured in terms of surplus-value. Labor has an economic value in this sense. It's fairly uncommon for workers to be paid just enough to cover the costs of their basic needs rather than the full value of their labor. Surplus labor and the value it generates are terms used to describe the residual resources after meeting
6 an individual basic needs. Sargent (2022) explains that by exploiting their employees and seizing this surplus-value, capitalists seek to profit. As a precursor of political conflict and struggle, Marx's effort to define labor power was an essential consideration in his work. Thacker (2017) claims that an athlete's accomplishment is converted into an object that can be traded for its equal worth in money. Workers in sweatshops trade their labor for money or another reward, much as athletes do. It makes no difference whether the producer is a professional or a weekend warrior when it comes to the commodification process. In either case, the spectator-consumer obtains the requested material thing. As a result, Thacker (2017) argues that university administrators are effectively exploiting the principle of amateurism. Thus, the collegiate sports industry relies heavily on the amateur student-athlete, who competes at a different level than professional athletes. Even while their financial worth may be measured in dollars, collegiate athletes may also be a source of a reputation for a school. An institution's reputation is strengthened by its athletic output, which is both connected and separate from its financial status. Intercollege athletics are undertaken in a high-stakes market for institutional reputation and financial gain, placing a greater emphasis on organizational achievement than on student academic performances. As a successful program, it might be formed of alienated student-athletes, separated from the team's performance and their own self-expression. These collegiate athletes typically saw themselves as disposable components in a computerized sporting machine, only as good as their most recent performance. The outside pressure to give positive results in this production system is considerably stronger when there is the opportunity for profit involved. As a result, there is an increased risk of estrangement. "This alienation has four major components," explains Kilburg (2018 ). Workers do not have the ability to own or regulate the brands of their own labor; they do not have an influence on the productivity; output in a capitalist economy risk alienating people from the full range of
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
7 creative possibilities available to them; and, finally, alienated labor generates particular social as well as production connections that are diametrically opposed to each other. This articulated alienation is usually only examined in terms of collegiate athletes' inability to own and manage their work and the production process. Marginal revenue (MRP) A wide range of economic theories may be tested in the sports sector because of the industry's unique institutional features. Sporting teams may be judged on their victories, as well as the productivity of their employees, regardless of whether they are collegiate or professional. The idea of marginal productivity in sports argues that clubs, leagues, and athletic departments want to maximize their profitability in terms of money as a possible output and desirable result. The change in total revenue as a consequence of variable input unit change while maintaining all other fixed inputs is defined by this economic theory as the marginal revenue product. According to Allison et al. (2021), it is feasible to get more exact estimations of each MRP and see whether their wages are in line with this. Players are exploited if they are paid less than their MRP worth. In economics, the phrase "exploitation" has a more specific meaning than it does in normal discourse. Allison et al. (2021) explains that it does not matter whether a player earns $10 million a year or $20 million a year in income for the club; he will still be abused. It is also argued that someone earning less than the minimum salary, say one dollar an hour, is not being abused as long as his MRP is a dollar or below. An intriguing philosophical quandary arises when a system like this is put in place to serve the interests of a broader group of student-athletes. Title IX and federal rules on gender parity in collegiate athletics may provide moral, if not legal, justification for abusing the minority in order to safeguard the majority's equality ( Allison et al., 2021), The promise of future education and the possibility of financial reward
8 The economic and social benefits of going to college and acquiring a bachelor's degree complicate these moral and economic assessments, which in turn complicate these moral and economic judgments. The cost of attending college and taking out student loans is on the rise, but the long-term advantages of earning a college degree are also increasing; employees with a college degree earn more and are less likely to be unemployed than those who just have a high school diploma. Having a bachelor's degree may also help an individual rise on the social ladder. After finishing their schooling, vote, participate in physical exercise, get health insurance, and retire with a pension. Smoking and being overweight are less common among those in this category, as is the likelihood of delivering a baby with low birth weight. A college degree is most likely to pay dividends for first-generation college-bound students and low-income. If an individual is a low- or moderate-income student, they are considerably less likely to go to college than a student from a more affluent family. Henry (2020) argues that even if an individual does not get their degree, they will still reap the advantages of a college education through participating in college sports. As a result, the most often cited claim that college sports are exploited centres on whether universities give true educational opportunities to their players, especially those on revenue-generating teams. Criticism of college athletes' educational opportunities may differ, but the evidence most frequently cited is the disparity. Athletes are used by certain colleges and universities for financial gain and public prominence, as well as for useless degrees in fields like general studies or recreational life. Because of this, college athletes' career goals are often more complex than they seem in the public eye. Student-athletes in high-profile sports like football and men's basketball, for example, may choose to pursue a college education instead of or in addition to their athletic careers. Henry (2020) explains that Getting noticed by professional scouts may be as important to some students as receiving a degree at a four-year university. Leaving college
9 early to pursue the professional fields will decrease institutional expenditures as well as potential money made by some of the most talented collegiate sportspersons who produce the highest revenue for their particular institutions or colleges. Their undergraduate and university success is undeniable; yet, these athletes have gained from the media attention and financial rewards that have come with being able to showcase their talents and abilities for professional teams, leagues, and organizations. The debate over paying athletes One of the NCAA's most well-known responsibilities is setting limits on how much money student-athletes may earn. This approach has been widely accepted, although the subject of whether or not college athletes should be paid has been a hot-button issue for many years. Kinard (2021) argues that to ask, "Should student-athletes be paid?" is a sign that there is a lot of debate going on in this area. On sports talk programs, in newspapers, and on social media, this is a hotly contested topic. In the United States, the issue has recently resurfaced as a result of laws approved in 2019 by the state of California. Governor Gavin Newsome of California passed legislation allowing college athletes in the state to negotiate endorsement agreements in September of 2020 ( Kinard, 2021). When an athlete signs an endorsement agreement, they may earn money for doing things like wearing a certain brand of shoes or appearing in advertisements. It's a kind of arrangement that allows players to get money from corporations and other organizations because of their sports prowess. That implies that Governor Newsome's bill directly defies the NCAA's rules and regulations regarding financial remuneration for student-athletes at member schools ( Tepen, 2021). Tepen (2021) explains that for this reason, Governor Jerry Brown of California feels that the NCAA is immoral for profiting from the unpaid work of its players. It's clear that the NCAA is making money: each year, the NCAA generates upwards of a billion dollars in income from its student-athlete potential, yet the organization prohibits
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
10 those same players from earning any money for their own skill. According to Tepen (2021) , as a result of a recent change in California law, athletes now have the option of booking sponsorships and hiring agents in order to supplement their incomes. The debate over paying athletes has seen several arguments put forward to support the strong stands. Those who support athletes to be paid argue that: 1. A portion of the profits should go to the artist This is the most often cited reason why collegiate athletes should be compensated. With facts and proof, it is also the simplest to back up; basically, the NCAA generates millions in revenues because people pay to see college players compete, and it's unfair that the athletes do not receive a share of the revenues. College and university athletic departments would not get hundreds of millions of dollars in NCAA funding each year if not for the contributions of student-athletes. The NCAA generates over $1 billion in income annually ( Rae, 2021).   Rae (2021) argues that in reality, the NCAA would not exist if it were not for student-athletes. People in support of compensating college athletes claim that since student-athletes create so much cash, they deserve some of it back. Instead of using a group of brilliant young people for their personal financial advantage, the NCAA and other organizations like media firms, schools, and institutions are exploiting a group of talented young people. 2. College athletes do not have time for other employment opportunities Gardella (2020) explains that students who play sports are sometimes referred to as "full-time" employees. For a large number of student-athletes, this is a fact. The time commitment required of a student-athlete is considerable. Their days are typically planned to the minute, from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to sleep. Student-schedule athletes often do not allow for much time for other activities. Student-athletes may be
11 encouraged to regard their sport as a full-time profession by sports programs. Many student- athletes may not be able to afford to pay for their school because of this ( Gardella , 2020) . It's important to note that not all NCAA players earn full or partial scholarships. While it may not be explicitly prohibited for student-athletes to have a part-time job, the temptation to go all-in for your team while still retaining their eligibility may be immense. A student-inability athletes to work a full-time job might have long-term ramifications for their career. Student-athletes seldom have time for internships or other career-related experiences during their time in college. They say that student-athletes are under-experienced when they graduate and may have difficulties establishing a career outside of athletics. It is because of these circumstances that some claim that student-athletes should be paid if they are to be considered "full-time" employees. 3. Student-athletes should only be compensated in certain circumstances As far as "Should student-athletes be paid?" is concerned, this position falls somewhere in between that of the more radical views. Students who are major revenue generators for their schools and the NCAA should be compensated. What's the rationale behind this claim? In capitalism, things like these are the norm. There will always be student- athletes who are better athletes and more popular in the media. Athletes are often sought out for endorsement deals because they serve as the public face of sports programs, excel in postseason play, and lead their squads to conference championships. As a result, certain sports do not bring in money for the institutions that sponsor them. According to Lorch (2021), no one may be barred from participating in a federally-funded program (including sports) because of their gender or sexual orientation. Because many of these activities are less popular with the public, they don't bring in as much money as big- ticket sports like football or basketball. The only people who should receive a piece of the
12 pie, according to this theory, are those who make the highest income since there simply isn't enough money to compensate every single college player in every single sport. According to the 2017-2018 season, the University of Louisville women's basketball team lost $3.8 million in income ( Lorch , 2021) . Even after deducting their salaries, the team still lost money. Paying players may not make sense in many scenarios, like when the University of Alabama football team brings in over $110 million a year in revenue ( Lorch , 2021) . Arguments against paying collegiate athletes Many people believe that collegiate athletes should not be compensated. Paying collegiate athletes is controversial for a number of reasons. The following are am the most cited reasons for this stand; 1. College athletes are already compensated When it comes to college athletes, the most popular argument against paying them is that they already get compensated in other ways. This includes being provided free tuition as well as supplementary funds to cover their living bills, meals, and other incidental educational expenditures. The proponents of this idea argue that student-athletes should be compensated with free tuition and educational expenditures. This money, even if it doesn't go directly into a collegiate athlete's bank account, is still a valued asset. In light of the fact that the average student leaves college with almost $30,000 in debt, an athletic scholarship may play a significant role in the overall cost of attendance ( Anderson, 2021). It is possible to gather evidence supporting this claim by comparing the financial aid that student-athletes get to the financial aid that non-athlete students receive. For example, student-athletes on Duke's athletics scholarship may "earn" over $200,000 over the course of their four years at the university ( Knoester & Ridpath, 2020). Student-athletes are paid both financially and non-
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
13 financially throughout their time at college, and this argument aims to emphasize the ways in which student-athletes are rewarded for their hard work and dedication. 2. Athletes should not be compensated for their time in the classroom Furthermore, treating student-athletes like professionals exploits them and diminishes the spirit of amateurism in college sports, which is why student players should not be paid. Students and the "amateurism" of college sports are at the heart of this position. Nilhas (2021) argues that many who hold this view do so with the hope of safeguarding both student-athletes and the tradition of college sports. Paying student-athletes, however, does not solve the issue of college athletics, and this argument is based on that premise. As an alternative, this argument would argue that the corrupt NCAA sports system can be fixed by providing student-athletes a salary. According to Nilhas (2021) , the NPR interview described in this post is a good source of proof that the European model of maintaining a real minor league system for most sports is successful; hence the US should follow suit. It is possible to assure that players who choose a professional future in their sport get compensation while avoiding the financial burden of compensating all college athletes. Students who desire to earn money playing sports might do so if a professional minor league was established and supported. According to Nilhas (2021) , Student-athletes would not see their college sports as the sole way to make it as professional players if universities were able to securely reincorporate sports income back into the institution. It is possible for those who want to play professionally to do so in the lower leagues, whilst student players would be allowed to focus on their studies. If a legitimate minor league structure is developed and supported, student-athletes can concentrate on their studies, while those who want to make money via their sport may do so in the minor league. This argument is attempting to reach some type of "best of both worlds" solution. Student-athletes pursuit of their education is
14 safeguarded by the use of this paradigm, and college sports are freed from ethical and logistical difficulties. 3. It is logistically a nightmare to enroll all students’ athletes to a payroll This objection against the payment of student-athletes is based on practicalities. Paying student-athletes would just make the present system even worse. It is best to keep things as they are until a solution can be found. In order to make a case for this viewpoint, the college NCAA must first provide many recommendations for how to compensate collegiate athletes and then point out the flaws in each of those plans. According to Winders (2019) , this argument leads to a conclusion that college athletes should not be paid because of the difficulties of executing it. "Pay-for-play" is one of the most common ideas for compensating college athletes. All collegiate players in this scenario would be paid the same amount each week to participate in their respective sports. Scandals and court cases are challenging the issue. Antitrust laws are applied differently when it comes to collegiate athletes' eligibility criteria. This is according to the Supreme Court ruling in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma 468 US 85 (1984) ( Greenspan, 1988). The NCAA has long contended that antitrust law allows them to limit player remuneration in order to foster competitive parity and separate collegiate athletics from professional sports because of this lower threshold. Several football and basketball players in Division 1 launched a complaint against the NCAA, claiming that the NCAA's limits on "non-cash education-related incentives" violated Sherman Act antitrust legislation. For the athletes, the district court ruled that the NCAA must allow for certain types of academic benefits, such as "computers, science equipment, and musical instruments and other tangible items not included in the cost of attendance calculation but nonetheless related to academic studies," which were not
15 included in the cost of attendance. District Court nonetheless ruled that the NCAA may still prohibit cash or cash equivalent grants for educational reasons. Though it acknowledged the NCAA's interest in "sustaining amateurism," the Ninth Circuit concluded that its antitrust activities violated the law, notwithstanding the NCAA's claims to the contrary. The Court concluded that it is illegal for the NCAA to deny student-athletes access to certain educational advantages. In a unanimous decision, Justice Gorsuch affirmed the lower Court's decision. A more lenient criterion proposed by the NCAA was rejected by the Court as being inappropriate in this instance. The NCAA's "untethered to education" standards were upheld by the Ninth Circuit, but the student-athletes who filed the complaint didn't appeal that decision, so the Court didn't provide a decision in that regard. A statement made in a 1984 case stating that the NCAA's role in maintaining the "revered tradition of amateurism" was "entirely consistent with the goals of the Sherman Act" was not a shield against all challenges to compensation restrictions, as such rules were not even on the table in that case, according to the Court's affirmation. There was nothing unusual about the NCAA or amateur sports to warrant a change in the standard antitrust examination procedure. However, although the Court did not address other laws restricting student-athlete remuneration unrelated to academics, this judgment makes it obvious that the same classic "rule of reason" reasoning would apply, according to Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence. Under "ordinary rule of reason examination," "there are major issues whether the NCAA's existing compensation policies can stand test." The Supreme Court also issued a decision against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), ruling that the organization is in violation of antitrust rules. This decision will have significant ramifications for college athletics for years to come. With a unanimous decision in The National College Athletic Association vs. Alston, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decision that the NCAA no longer had the authority to
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
16 prescribe limitations on education-related remuneration. It is stated in the ruling, which was authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, that the NCAA must cease claiming protection from the usual functioning of antitrust law. This lawsuit includes confessed horizontal price-fixing in a market where the defendants possess monopolistic power," Justice Gorsuch said in his decision. The verdict does not alter the long-standing NCAA guideline that collegiate athletes do not receive direct monetary compensation for their accomplishments. The school will compensate students in other ways, such as via the provision of educational resources such as laptop computers, musical instruments, scientific equipment, tutoring services, and extra scholarships offered through the school, such as for graduate school expenditures. The judges, on the other hand, unanimously expressed their dissatisfaction with the policy. Their decision also portrayed a negative picture of the way the country's collegiate sporting programs have been run in recent years. Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in his particularly critical concurring opinion that "the simple truth is that the NCAA and its member universities are suppressing the compensation of student-athletes who together produce billions of dollars in earnings for colleges every year." Shawne Alston, the principal plaintiff in the lawsuit, was a football player at West Virginia University from 2009 to 2012 ( Marietta, 2022). During his time there, he scored 19 touchdowns on the ground. As part of the class- action lawsuit against the NCAA, he and other college football and basketball athletes alleged that the association's compensation restrictions violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits any contract that restricts trade or commerce in the United States or with foreign countries. In a strange coincidence, the Supreme Court ruling comes at the same time that robust legislation is being drafted in state legislatures around the nation to help student-athletes who want to get more financial compensation for their work.   For example, Florida's NIL Act,
17 enacted under Governor Ron DeSantis, took effect on July 1 of this year. Scholarship athletes at the University of Miami got an offer from a Miami-based martial arts school to earn up to $500 per month in advertising and marketing within a week of receiving the offer. No matter if the NCAA agrees with these recent rulings or not, it is evident that a new era in college athletics has begun, regardless of whether the NCAA approves of them. In spite of this, one point expressed by Justice Gorsuch holds truer now than it has ever done before: inventing new methods to make money is a tradition as American as apple pie. While the judge alluded to what is often regarded as the country's inaugural intercollegiate tournament, he highlighted that our revenue had been the driving force behind college athletics in the United States for many decades. This was decades before the NCAA was established. While making a passing reference to the race in his conclusion, Justice Gorsuch noted that money had been the driving force behind American collegiate athletics since its inception. Future issues with paying athletes What are the social responsibilities of colleges and athletes? Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in sport must be kept in mind as the business of sport continues to develop. There is a booming college sports industry in the United States. Sports business in higher education is dominated by colleges and institutions that belong to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Turner & Hazley (2018) argues that the NCAA has done a lot of good, but it is also a paradoxical organization. The concept of CSR is based on stakeholder theory. When it comes to college sports, social responsibility and social accountability must be examined more thoroughly, particularly in light of the controversies surrounding the idea of amateurism. Amateurism, education, and commercialism are all important considerations in college athletics. Since college players aren't paid and don't practice like pros, amateurism is critical to their success. Despite the
18 high income reported by several sports, the NCAA has retained its amateurism concept. Athletics at the college level have a number of social obligations. The remuneration of student-athletes to participate in sports at big institutions and the share of athletic clothing earnings are two areas of concern for them as important stakeholders. The NCAA does not presently allow players to be paid for their services. Apparently, it will not be changing its restrictions regarding the distribution of riches among sportsmen anytime soon. "Compensation for kids is simply something I'm vehemently opposed to," NCAA president Mark Emmert said recently at the IMG International Athletics Forum ( Jensen, 2020). As a student-athlete, there is no better location in the world to hone one's craft than at a college or university. The student-athlete may argue that this stance is not in their best interest because of the income made by the member schools from the athletes' labors. In the end, the most important issue to address is: What does social responsibility imply in the context of intercollegiate athletics? As a result of this question, there are further questions. As a society, do we need to focus more on education than sports in order to be socially responsible, or should we seek balance? What is the best way to divide the income earned by the major sports leagues? When it comes to supporting the NCAA's most valuable asset, the student-athlete, how can we do it without giving out conflicting signals about what college sports are all about? The NCAA may have a tough time assessing social responsibility because of the wide range of perceptions that stakeholders have regarding CSR in the college context. Fans and spectators, for example, may have a different perspective on social responsibility than coaches and sports administrators. According to Cruikshan (2020) , since the NCAA is still trying to figure out what social responsibility is and how it might be applied to college sports operations, having a common vocabulary and an open dialogue with all interested stakeholders may be a good place to start.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
19 The solutions that are most beneficial to college players are those that include reining in the all-consuming commercial force of athletics rather than allowing it to flourish. Among these suggestions are: 1. Eliminate the one-and-done rule in the NBA. A disproportionate amount of emphasis has been placed on the very small number of basketball players who are obliged to attend college for a year and have no intention of graduating or utilizing their education for any reason other than to retain their technical eligibility for the season. The NCAA has been the target of most of the outrage over this ludicrous state of things. The NBA has a regulation that prevents athletes under the age of 19 from participating ( Springer, 2019).  The answer is for the NBA to provide additional professional opportunities for men's basketball players who do not choose to continue their education at a four-year institution. As a result, the farce would come to an end. The NBA's developmental league revealed this week that top high- school prospect Darius Bazley will skip a year of college basketball in order to join them. Professional football has the potential to follow suit and there is also some movement to do so. The continuation of college sports as a viable option for athletes who also choose to pursue a college degree would be beneficial to the sport of college sports. Furthermore, it will need the NCAA to enact stronger safeguards to ensure that athletes can truly fulfill their commitment. 2. College athletes should get universal stipends. The story of the United States Soccer Federation demonstrates how difficult it would be for institutions to defend a system in which some players get paid more than others ( Gillespie, 2017). The compensation should be divided evenly, based on the number of hours of work put in by the athletes, rather than on the number of people who tune in to see them compete on television. Members of the band and cheerleaders should be eligible as well.
20 3. Scholarships that are guaranteed for five years. Sports were seen as an extracurricular activity that could be done on the side while a student was studying under the original four-year model of education. Many people find this challenging because of the demands of athletics ( Edelman, 2019). Every scholarship athlete should be granted five years of free tuition, lodging, and board, during which they may participate in athletics for a total of four years of eligibility. It should only be possible to have the scholarship revoked in circumstances of demonstrated misbehavior or academic failure. There will be no expulsion of students from school because they have not progressed athletically. 4. College athletes' unions are forming. In the United States, we have an institution that is dedicated to negotiating for decent working conditions and protecting the rights of vulnerable employees: labor unions. Northwestern football players attempted to create a union but were refused by the National Labor Relations Board in their efforts ( Blutman, 2017). However, in the absence of a legal labor union, a union-like organization might be created to perform the functions of collective bargaining on behalf of the workers. Students, rather than lavishly compensated administrators and coaches, would benefit from a greater part of the excess cash created by lucrative college sports as a result of this measure. In conclusion, the obsession with markets as a solution to the problems of collegiate athletics has always seemed odd. Even at the highest level of professional competition, sports, in general, have never functioned exclusively on market principles. Only professional sports have the authority to deny a person the ability to work in the place of their choice just because a company in another city has drafted the sole right to force them to live and work in that location. College athletics are particularly unfriendly to the ideas of the free market. Instead of evolving to meet market demand, they have evolved in response to a social need, and the great majority of its members do not perform any capitalist functions unless you think that the extension of market forces is a positive development everywhere and at all times, the
21 appropriate reaction to the invasion of market dynamics into collegiate athletics is to fight back. References Allison, R., Knoester, C., & Ridpath, B. D. (2021). Public Opinions About Paying College Athletes and Athletes Protesting During the National Anthem: A Focus on Race/ethnicity and Political Identities.   Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race , 1-23. Anderson, A. (2021).   Exploration of Student-Athletes' College Choice at Small, Private NCAA Division I Institutions   (Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University Chicago). Blutman, A. (2017). Paying College Athletes: An Analysis of Proposed Reforms for the Collegiate Athletic Model. Cruikshank, D. (2020). The Fair Pay to Play Act: Likely Unconstitutional, Yet Necessary to Protect Athletes.   Ohio St. LJ Online ,   81 , 253. Edelman, M. (2017). A Prelude to Jenkins v. NCAA: Amateurism, Antitrust Law, and the Role of Consumer Demand in a Proper Rule of Reason Analysis.   La. L. Rev. ,   78 , 227.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
22 Edelman, M. (2017 b ). From Student-Athletes to Employee-Athletes: Why a Pay for Play Model of College Sports Would Not Necessarily Make Educational Scholarships Taxable.   BCL Rev. ,   58 , 1137. Edelman, M. (2019). The NCAA, Fair Pay to Play, Antitrust Scrutiny, and the Need for Institutional Reform.   Wake Forest J. Bus. & Intell. Prop. L. ,   20 , 177. Gardella, D. (2020). Financial Justice: College Athletes Should be Compensated. Gillespie, E. (2017). The Ethical and Financial Implications of Paying College Athletes. Greenspan, D. (1988). College Football's Biggest Fumble: The Economic Impact of the Supreme Court's decision in National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma.   The Antitrust Bulletin ,   33 (1), 1-65. Henry, J. (2020). Amateurism: The Issue of Paying College Level Athletes.   Journal of the Student Personnel Association at Indiana University , 134-138. Jensen, E. M. (2020). College Athletics and the Tax on Unrelated Business Income: Will" Student Athletes" Still Be Students After the NCAA Changes Its Rules?.   Journal of Taxation of Investments ,   37 (2). Kilburg, T. (2018). Should Division I College Athletes Receive Compensation in Excess of their Scholarships?.   Major Themes in Economics ,   20 (1), 1-47. Kinard, M. (2021). The Effects of Compensation for NCAA Athletes. Knoester, C., & Ridpath, B. D. (2020). Should college athletes be allowed to be paid? A public opinion analysis.   Sociology of Sport Journal ,   38 (4), 399-411. Lorch, S. (2021). The Price to Play: Compensation for College Athletes. Marietta, M. (2022). NCAA v. Alston on College Sports. In   SCOTUS 2021   (pp. 101-110). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
23 Meyer, J., & Zimbalist, A. (2020). A win win: College athletes get paid for their names, images, and likenesses and colleges maintain the primacy of academics.   Harv. J. Sports & Ent. L. ,   11 , 247. Nilhas, J. (2021). The Fight for Pay: How the Supreme Court Ultimately May Use Antitrust Law to Allow Student-Athletes to be Paid. Rae, M. (2021).   Is Paying Athletes the Future of the NCAA? . SAGE Publications: SAGE Business Cases Originals. Sanderson, A. R., & Siegfried, J. J. (2015). The case for paying college athletes.   Journal of Economic Perspectives ,   29 (1), 115-38. Sargent, M. J. (2022). Skin in the game: Race, ingroup identification, and attitudes toward paying college athletes.   Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology . Springer, J. (2019).   Necessary Resilience: Experiences of African American Men Athletes in Community Colleges   (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University). Tepen, L. (2021). Pay to Play: Looking beyond Direct Compensation and Toward Paying College Athletes for Themselves.   Wash. UJL & Pol'y ,   65 , 213. Thacker, D. (2017). Amateurism vs. capitalism: A practical approach to paying college athletes.   Seattle J. Soc. Just. ,   16 , 183. Turner, L. M., & Hazley, A. N. (2018). Student affairs professionals play key role in success of student athletes.   Student Affairs Today ,   21 (3), 1-3. Winders, A. (2019). Employing a Nation of Student Athletes.   JL & Educ. ,   48 , 413
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help