O’Bannon victory step in right direction for college sports
Earlier this month, in the form of a federal judge’s ruling, common sense prevailed in college athletics for the first time in a long time.
And while Ed O’Bannon’s in-court victory over the NCAA is not the first domino to fall in the direction of paying college athletes, it sure should make the rest of them go down quicker.
Since its inception in 1906, the governing body of college athletics has blocked student-athletes from profiting off of, or receiving compensation for the use of their likenesses. In the NCAA’s ludicrous pursuit of labeling college athletes amateurs in order to rake in billions of dollars without sharing a dime, students and programs have received sanctions for using university garden hoses, selecting the wrong condiment for their bagel and, more recently, decorating their cookie cakes improperly.
Those punishments have been the result of NCAA grasping at straws to maintain their chokehold over college athletics. But it looks like the jig may finally be up.
Although it’s just an initial ruling that I see changing over time, starting in 2016 student athletes may receive around $5,000 per year in the form of a trust fund, collectible after graduation, on top of their scholarships.
Our beloved head ball coach seemed to agree with the ruling.
“You can’t make millions of dollars on these athletes and they get nothing,” Steve Spurrier said. “Wait a minute. That’s what we do, though, isn’t it?”
He’s not wrong. College athletics is the only arena on the planet in which people are banned from tapping into the fair market. And not only are players restricted from profiting off of themselves, the NCAA has been doing it in the form of jersey sales and formerly video games likenesses for years.
Looking through a lens of human rights and decency, there isn’t a very strong justification for what the NCAA does. Of course, there are parties that still support their practices.
Opponents of the ruling argue that paying players would detract from the true meaning of college football (i.e. school spirit and playing for the name on the front of the jersey rather than the name on the back.)
This issue would only arise in a free-for-all situation with no regulations on how players can profit. If athletes are left to their own devices and allowed to set up a booth on the corner and charge $100 for an autograph, then things could get dicey.
This takes us to the root of the issue now that a federal judge has recognized the injustice of the current system. Change won’t happen immediately, but the ruling will immediately shift the focus.
The debate is no longer whether or not college athletes should be paid, but rather how they should receive that compensation.