proposal
Elena Shalom
Professor Goeller
Research in the Disciplines: College!
11 March 2020
Research Proposal
Working Title
- Is the Exploitation of College Athletes Justified?
- Is Surplus Value Relevant to “Student-Athletes”?
- Student-Athlete or Athletic Student?
Topic Description
College athletes, especially those of minority groups, have reported all over the country that they feel
exploited for their athletic ability, more so than their white teammates. The common opposing argument
to this claim is that sports can provide educational opportunities to underprivileged minorities that they
may not have otherwise been given. With this, comes the topic of proper reimbursement, or “surplus
value,” in that the athletes with outstanding performance who increase the revenue of the school’s athletic
department are said to not be fairly compensated for their hard work. Some compare this to slavery or
free labor, in that that the NCAA is a billion-dollar corporation, while others believe that free education
is enough compensation.
exploited for their athletic ability, more so than their white teammates. The common opposing argument
to this claim is that sports can provide educational opportunities to underprivileged minorities that they
may not have otherwise been given. With this, comes the topic of proper reimbursement, or “surplus
value,” in that the athletes with outstanding performance who increase the revenue of the school’s athletic
department are said to not be fairly compensated for their hard work. Some compare this to slavery or
free labor, in that that the NCAA is a billion-dollar corporation, while others believe that free education
is enough compensation.
Research Question
Is the physical and mental strain associated with college sports worth more than, less than, or equal to
that of a college degree? Why are minorities more likely to feel exploited? What does this exploitation
involve? What is the flip side of this argument?
that of a college degree? Why are minorities more likely to feel exploited? What does this exploitation
involve? What is the flip side of this argument?
Theoretical Frame
During the time of segregation, predominantly black universities became the powerhouses of the athletic
world, creating some of the best athletes in the country. Over the past 50 years, however, integration has
brought together people of all races to compete on the same field at previously white universities, due to
their NCAA affiliation. With this, football and basketball are among the group of “affordable” sports, in
which families do not need to come from affluent backgrounds in order to excel. This being said, colleges
have found it very easy to exploit those from non-established families by putting their physical and
mental health on the line for a scholarship. In many cases, these students know that without their athletic
ability they may not be able to afford a college education or even get admitted to the university in the
first place. Some colleges use this as leverage against their athletes, by working them past what their
bodies can handle, often resulting in serious injury. This comes with two problems 1. The ambiguity of
the term “student-athlete” which sugar coats the fact that despite being a student, in some cases they are
treated and worked equal to that of professionals but without the same compensation, and 2. The term
surplus-value, in which an athlete is the same as any other profession and deserves compensation equal
to what they make for the university. In order to play a sport in the NCAA, athletes must sign a
significant number of papers, essentially giving colleges all the rights of profiting off of the student’s
image.
world, creating some of the best athletes in the country. Over the past 50 years, however, integration has
brought together people of all races to compete on the same field at previously white universities, due to
their NCAA affiliation. With this, football and basketball are among the group of “affordable” sports, in
which families do not need to come from affluent backgrounds in order to excel. This being said, colleges
have found it very easy to exploit those from non-established families by putting their physical and
mental health on the line for a scholarship. In many cases, these students know that without their athletic
ability they may not be able to afford a college education or even get admitted to the university in the
first place. Some colleges use this as leverage against their athletes, by working them past what their
bodies can handle, often resulting in serious injury. This comes with two problems 1. The ambiguity of
the term “student-athlete” which sugar coats the fact that despite being a student, in some cases they are
treated and worked equal to that of professionals but without the same compensation, and 2. The term
surplus-value, in which an athlete is the same as any other profession and deserves compensation equal
to what they make for the university. In order to play a sport in the NCAA, athletes must sign a
significant number of papers, essentially giving colleges all the rights of profiting off of the student’s
image.
The two common arguments against paying “student-athletes” are 1. Ruining the integrity of amateurism
and 2. Education should be enough of a compensation. Avid college sports fans claim that paying these
athletes “destroys the integrity and appeal of college sports” and can “spoil the sanctity of the bond they
enjoyed with their teammates” (Branch). Others, however, argue that the opposite, in that based on the
amount of time and physical strain placed on these “students” and the “the university's contracts with
television and radio networks, merchandising companies, and other corporations, in addition to ticket and
concession sales, bowl games, and tournaments, and shared that the university was profiting from their
labor” (Beamon 358). This brings about the question, Is it fair that some college athletes cannot afford
bus fares while the NCAA is racking in billions of dollars, just to maintain the ideals of “amateurism?”
This being said, those in the category of not being able to afford bus fares, are much less likely to speak
to superiors regarding their injustice. Additionally, they often know that without their athletic abilities,
they would not be able to attend college in the first place. But is the work they put fairly compensated
by solely an education? Based on the student by Krystal Beamon, 19 out of 20 say no (Beamon 358).
Many of the former student-athletes discuss how they feel blatantly and openly used by the universities
despite getting a “college degree,” in that they were never able to do the majors that they wanted,
considering most majors conflicted with the times of football practice. “One of the primary sources of
career immaturity among college athletes derives from limitations in choosing a major. They cannot
choose majors that have required courses held during times set aside for sports participation. Additionally,
most (15 of 20) mentioned choosing majors with courses classified as "easy to pass" or departments that
were "athlete-friendly’” (Beamon 360). Despite many arguing that free education is enough compensation
for a student-athlete, due to their inability to choose a profitable career path, it can be seen that it is in fact
not an equivalent trade-off. Essentially, universities are profiting off of the hard work of their athletes and
in return failing to provide the opportunity of a profitable degree, as they allegedly promise.
The NCAA states that student-athletes graduation rates are significantly higher than the general
student body. However, when broken down it can be seen that minority groups get the short end
of the stick of this statistic, “according to a study of basketball players’ graduation rates from
1999 to 2003 released by the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida
, 79% of the teams in the 2010 Men’s Division I NCAA Tournament graduated at least 70% of their White
athletes, while only 31% of the teams in the field graduated at least 70% of their Black players: a 48%
achievement gap in graduation rates” (Rheenen and Atwood 558). It can be seen that graduation rates of
minority groups differ significantly from White athletes. Additionally, it is not uncommon for those who
do graduate with a degree to attain no of little to no value in the real world. Overall, the term student-
athlete shields that NCAA from losing money and aids in the exploitation of unjustly compensating those
who put their lives on the line for their multibillion-dollar corporation.
and 2. Education should be enough of a compensation. Avid college sports fans claim that paying these
athletes “destroys the integrity and appeal of college sports” and can “spoil the sanctity of the bond they
enjoyed with their teammates” (Branch). Others, however, argue that the opposite, in that based on the
amount of time and physical strain placed on these “students” and the “the university's contracts with
television and radio networks, merchandising companies, and other corporations, in addition to ticket and
concession sales, bowl games, and tournaments, and shared that the university was profiting from their
labor” (Beamon 358). This brings about the question, Is it fair that some college athletes cannot afford
bus fares while the NCAA is racking in billions of dollars, just to maintain the ideals of “amateurism?”
This being said, those in the category of not being able to afford bus fares, are much less likely to speak
to superiors regarding their injustice. Additionally, they often know that without their athletic abilities,
they would not be able to attend college in the first place. But is the work they put fairly compensated
by solely an education? Based on the student by Krystal Beamon, 19 out of 20 say no (Beamon 358).
Many of the former student-athletes discuss how they feel blatantly and openly used by the universities
despite getting a “college degree,” in that they were never able to do the majors that they wanted,
considering most majors conflicted with the times of football practice. “One of the primary sources of
career immaturity among college athletes derives from limitations in choosing a major. They cannot
choose majors that have required courses held during times set aside for sports participation. Additionally,
most (15 of 20) mentioned choosing majors with courses classified as "easy to pass" or departments that
were "athlete-friendly’” (Beamon 360). Despite many arguing that free education is enough compensation
for a student-athlete, due to their inability to choose a profitable career path, it can be seen that it is in fact
not an equivalent trade-off. Essentially, universities are profiting off of the hard work of their athletes and
in return failing to provide the opportunity of a profitable degree, as they allegedly promise.
The NCAA states that student-athletes graduation rates are significantly higher than the general
student body. However, when broken down it can be seen that minority groups get the short end
of the stick of this statistic, “according to a study of basketball players’ graduation rates from
1999 to 2003 released by the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida
, 79% of the teams in the 2010 Men’s Division I NCAA Tournament graduated at least 70% of their White
athletes, while only 31% of the teams in the field graduated at least 70% of their Black players: a 48%
achievement gap in graduation rates” (Rheenen and Atwood 558). It can be seen that graduation rates of
minority groups differ significantly from White athletes. Additionally, it is not uncommon for those who
do graduate with a degree to attain no of little to no value in the real world. Overall, the term student-
athlete shields that NCAA from losing money and aids in the exploitation of unjustly compensating those
who put their lives on the line for their multibillion-dollar corporation.
Cases/Examples
One example is a case where the subtle ambiguity of the term“student-athlete” worked against an athlete
who was brutally injured. “College players were not students at play (which might understate their athletic
obligations), nor were they just athletes in college (which might imply they were professionals)” (Branch)
. This term gave colleges the leeway to use the term in any way to suit their cause. In 1974, Texas
Christian University running back, Kent Waldrep, faced a severe injury leaving him paralyzed from the
neck down. Waldrep was bound to his wheelchair with little to no mobility and or mobility to hold a stable
job. With this, Waldrep sued the university for workman’s compensation, however, it was deemed not
applicable because he did not pay taxes on the financial aid provided to him by the university, and
therefore not an employee. “Waldrep was told that school officials, “said they recruited me as a student,
not an athlete,” which he says was absurd” (Branch). Due to the term “student-athlete, Waldrep was not
given the same compensation that a regular athlete would have been provided. The NCAA uses this term
to shield them against many possible cases brought against them.
who was brutally injured. “College players were not students at play (which might understate their athletic
obligations), nor were they just athletes in college (which might imply they were professionals)” (Branch)
. This term gave colleges the leeway to use the term in any way to suit their cause. In 1974, Texas
Christian University running back, Kent Waldrep, faced a severe injury leaving him paralyzed from the
neck down. Waldrep was bound to his wheelchair with little to no mobility and or mobility to hold a stable
job. With this, Waldrep sued the university for workman’s compensation, however, it was deemed not
applicable because he did not pay taxes on the financial aid provided to him by the university, and
therefore not an employee. “Waldrep was told that school officials, “said they recruited me as a student,
not an athlete,” which he says was absurd” (Branch). Due to the term “student-athlete, Waldrep was not
given the same compensation that a regular athlete would have been provided. The NCAA uses this term
to shield them against many possible cases brought against them.
Works Cited
BEAMON, K. K. “Used Goods”: Former African American College Student-Athletes’ Perception of Exploitation by Division I Universities. Journal of Negro Education, [s. l.], v. 77, n. 4, p. 352–364, 2008. DisponÃvel em: https://search-ebscohost-com.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=37374611&site=ehost-live. Acesso em: 10 mar. 2020.
Benneth, Robert A., and Ryan P. Adserias. Black Males and Intercollegiate Athletics : an Exploration of Problems and Solutions. Emerald, 2015.
Branch, Story by Taylor. “The Shame of College Sports.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 30 Aug. 2019, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/.
Gilbert, Daniel A. “Not (Just) About the Money: Contextualizing the Labor Activism of College Football Players.” American Studies, vol. 55, no. 3, 2016, pp. 19–34, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/651539.
Van Rheenen, Derek and Jason R. Atwood. "Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Perceived Exploitation of College Athletes Questionnaire." Journal of College Student Development, vol. 55 no. 5, 2014, p. 486-491. Project MUSE,
Van Rheenen, Derek. “Exploitation in College Sports: Race, Revenue, and Educational Reward.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport, vol. 48, no. 5, SAGE Publications, Oct. 2013, pp. 550–71, doi:10.1177/1012690212450218.
Comments
Post a Comment