Bibliography

Druckman, James N., et al. "The Role Of Social Context In Shaping Student-Athlete Opinions." Plos ONE 9.12 (2014): 1-14. Academic Search Premier. Web. 18 Dec. 2014

Edelman, Marc. "A Short Treatise On Amateurism And Antitrust Law: Why The Ncaa's No-Pay Rules Violate Section 1 Of The Sherman Act." Case Western Reserve Law Review 64.1 (2013): 61-99. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Mar. 2013

Farrey, Tom. "Ed O'Bannon: Ruling Is Tip Of iceberg." ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, 10 Aug. 2014. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.

LINDENBERGER, MICHAEL A. "Texas Athletic Director: With New Rules, Longhorns Would Pay Each Player $10,000." The Dallas Morning News. The Dallas Morning News, 22 Oct. 2014. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.

McCormick, Robert A., and Amy Christian McCormick. “The Myth of the Student-Athlete: The College Athlete as Employee” Washington Law Review Association Seattle, Washington 81:71 (2006): 71-157. Web.

Olson, Max. "Once-homeless Baylor RB Off team." ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.

Sanderson, Allen R., and John J. Siegfried. "The Case For Paying College Athletes." Journal Of Economic Perspectives 29.1 (2015): 115-138. Business Source Premier. Web. 2 January 2015.

Sobocinski, Eric J. “College Athletes: What is Fair Compensation?” Marquette Sports Law Review Milwaukee, Wisconsin 7.1 (1996) 258-294. Web.

Austin T. Smith

Research in the Disciplines: College

Professor Michael Goeller

02 March 2015

Working Title:

The Paying of College Athletes

Topic:

The issue I will be presenting is the debate as to whether or not college athletes should be paid for playing. In addition to this root question I will also be discussing various other related questions such as where the money would come from if the college athletes were to be paid, and how the money would be distributed between the universities. For example, does a Heisman winning quarterback at a Division 1 school deserved to be paid more than a Division 3 fencing athlete who would bring in dramatically less money for his/her university? This topic has been discussed time and time again. This a topic that exceeds the general realm of sports and stretches into politics, especially when regarding the NCAA’s role in this debate.

Research Question:

Should college athletes be paid, and if so, how should that payment be conducted?

Theoretical Frame:

There really isn’t much in terms of case studies for a topic like this seeing how this is a debate based more on a moral and economic standpoint. However there is an important court case in that of O’Bannon v. NCAA which has already directly affected the decision made by Texas University to award their athletes a stipend. Ed O’Bannon was a former member of the UCLA men’s basketball team and what started as a battle for the NCAA’s right to use the image and information of players like and including O’Bannon has now escalated and been one of the major driving forces behind the push to pay college athletes. I will use sources from both ESPN and the Dallas Morning News to discuss these two cases.

Case:

I would like to discuss the recent news regarding Baylor University athlete Silas Nacita. Nacita spent his high school life living at various friends’ houses after the death of his father and the separation from his estranged mother. He was a standout football player and an incredible student. He received a scholarship to attend Cornell University, but decided an Ivy League school like that was not a good fit. He then moved to Waco, Texas in an attempt to walk-on to the Baylor University football team, which he eventually did. not having enough money to pay for his room and board at Baylor, Nacita was left homeless, at which point he was approached by a close family friend who put him up in an apartment and helped him with his living expenses. The NCAA ruled this as an infraction regarding their eligibility policy, and now Nacita is no longer allowed to play NCAA sports. I will also be using an ESPN article to discuss this.

In addition I would also like to use an article conducted by several Political Science departments at universities across the world that discuses how the actual student athletes feel about the issue regarding their payment. I will also be using an article from the Journal of Economic Perspectives that will discus the economic side of the issue and also an article from Case Western Reserve Law Review that brings to light the legal implications of this whole debate.

    I would also like to explore the legal ramifications of the NCAA’s actions in regards to this topic. An article I have found by Marc Edelman discusses whether or not the NCAA is violating the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 which was used to vanquish the monopoly and cartel nature that had consumed the American economy. Edelman argues that with the NCAA’s decision to not pay college athletes they are acting in a Monopoly-like fashion and are therefore violating the Sherman Act.

Working Bibliography:

Druckman, James N., et al. "The Role Of Social Context In Shaping Student-Athlete Opinions." Plos ONE 9.12 (2014): 1-14. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Mar. 2015

Edelman, Marc. "A Short Treatise On Amateurism And Antitrust Law: Why The Ncaa's No-Pay Rules Violate Section 1 Of The Sherman Act." Case Western Reserve Law Review 64.1 (2013): 61-99. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Mar. 2015

Farrey, Tom. "Ed O'Bannon: Ruling Is Tip Of iceberg." ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, 10 Aug. 2014. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.

LINDENBERGER, MICHAEL A. "Texas Athletic Director: With New Rules, Longhorns Would Pay Each Player $10,000." The Dallas Morning News. The Dallas Morning News, 22 Oct. 2014. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.

McCormick, Robert A., and Amy Christian McCormick. “The Myth of the Student-Athlete: The College Athlete as Employee” Washington Law Review Association 81:71 (2006): 71-157.

Olson, Max. "Once-homeless Baylor RB Off team." ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.

Sanderson, Allen R., and John J. Siegfried. "The Case For Paying College Athletes." Journal Of Economic Perspectives 29.1 (2015): 115-138. Business Source Premier. Web. 2 Mar. 2015

Sobocinski, Eric J. “College Athletes: What is Fair Compensation?” Marquette Sports Law Review 7.1 (1996) 258-294.

Literature Review 2

Literature Review 2: The Case For Paying College Athletes

    This article is written by Allen R. Sanderson, an economics professor at The University of Chicago, and John J. Siegfried, an economics professor at Vanderbilt University. As shown by their job descriptions, this article by Sanderson and Siegfried is going to help me delve into the economic standpoint regarding the payment of college athletes. In addition to this, the authors discuss this topic from the perspective of the student athlete. When discussing this topic, most people seem to be in agreement that it would definitely benefit all of the players if they got paid, but Sanderson and Siegfried present a different idea. "Not all
Division I football or men’s basketball players currently are exploited. The star quarterback, running back, or wide receiver, or the high-scoring shooting guard or 7-foot shot-blocking center would clearly be paid more in a competitive market for college athletics talent. But a bench warmer might be paid less" (129). In other words, the players that spend their careers as back-ups may lose in this situation because teams may not be willing to give them compensation that would exceed the benefits they are already receiving. College athletes are already receiving scholarships valuing upwards of $50,000, while the top players may receive more than that the lesser players may receive less, so if the college does not offer them a scholarship in addition to their compensation, then they are actually losing money in this ordeal. Players may also lose out in the end because their athletic organization ends up losing money. Sanderson and Siegfried explain: "In a free market for labor, universities would compete against each otherfor the services of new high school graduate athletes. With many universities and many high school graduates, such a market could be workably competitive. The
result would be a competitive wage paid for player skills and probably a much reduced surplus earned by college athletic departments" (124). With some athletic departments already in the red, introducing the practice of bidding for top-name athletes could run these teams into bankruptcy. Another discussion topic that slips under the radar is the employment laws. If college athletes were to be paid they would have to be considered employees and labor laws must be applied to employees: "Because Division I athletes have historically been considered “students” rather than employees, they are not covered by labor laws, are not eligible for workers compensation, and cannot bargain collectively via union representation" (124). There are few activities in the world today that render more injuries than sports, so paying players workers' compensation and also allowing them to unionize could spell trouble for the NCAA and the schools it represents.
Key Terms:
Labor Union: An organization of workers that seek to protect and further their rights in their particular fields.
Workers' Compensation: A form of insurance that provides wage replacement for those injured on the job.

Allen R. Sanderson

Literature Review 1

Literature Review 1: A Short Treatise on Amateurism and Antitrust Law: Why the NCAA’s No-Pay Rules Violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act
 

   In this article, Marc Edelman discusses the idea that not only should the NCAA pay their student athletes, but by not doing so they are breaking the law. The Sherman Antitrust Act was a landmark decision by the U.S. Congress in 1890 that ultimately was used to help dissolve the monopolies and cartels that were rooted in the American business industry. What Edelman is trying to argue is that by not paying the players, the NCAA is violating some of these limitations that were put forth by the Sherman Act. Edelman describes some of these limitations in his article: “. . . The no-pay rules represent a form of wage fixing that harms not only the market for student-athlete services but also the quality of college sports’ on-field product” (76).Edelman explains that those at the head of the monopolies of the past would use wage fixing as a way of injuring the market and that this act was deemed illegal by the Sherman Act. So by agreeing not to pay the players, the NCAA is engaging in a form of wage fixing, forcing the players to go play for the NCAA because there is no alternate place where they can get a higher wage. Edelman also argues that: “. . . The NCAA rules constitute an illegal group boycott of those colleges that would otherwise compete in a free market to recruit student-athletes” (76). In this instance, Edelman argues that by not allowing the different colleges to offer compensation as a way of recruiting players, the NCAA is again violating the Sherman Act. So is these things are true then why hasn’t the NCAA been prosecuted for their wrongdoings; Edelman explains: “Although eight lower courts have found the NCAA’s eligibility rules to be noncommercial and thus exempt from the Sherman Act, each of these decisions is wrongly decided” (98). Because the NCAA is not seen as a commercial business the charges from the Sherman Act cannot be applied, but clearly Edelman feels this to be a wrong judgment. Edelman’s piece brought a whole new light to this debate that I was unaware of. I had always considered this to be a moral or economic issue, but clearly it can also be seen as a legal issue and that is certainly worth mentioning in my essay.

Key Terms:

Monopoly: The exclusive possession or control of the market on any service or commodity.

Sherman Act: A federal law passed in 1890 that was aimed

Marc Edelman, law professor at The City University of New York, specializing in sports law.

at putting an end to the monopolies and cartels that were looming at the time.