Should Student Athletes Receive Stipends Past their Scholarships?
Arkansas State University
Intercollegiate athletics has gained a massive amount of popularity over the past few decades. Student-athletes aren’t asking for millions of dollars, they are just asking for enough money to live off of. Television contracts, multi-million dollar coaches, and endorsements are the way to universities and coaches, so it is suitable to provide compensation for the student-athlete who makes these opportunities possible for each university. Proponents of compensating student-athletes for their participation in these revenue-generating sports have ...view middle of the document...
For the most part, most division I universities have substantially more men’s athletic programs, with men’s activities (such as football) involving more student-athletes per team (Haden, 2001, pp.679). This discrepancy begins to become an obstacle with intercollegiate athletics. Lastly, the most commonly cited obstacle in the path of pay-for-play advocates is the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Sherman Act states “every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal (Haden, 2001, pp. 679). The NCAA and its institutions partake in interstate commerce with activities such as; recruiting, ticket sales and competitions. Which then makes the NCAA subject to Sherman Act restrictions on stipends. After all the obstacles were faced and the lawsuits took place, the conclusion to provide “laundry money” to student athletes (RE-WORD)
According to the article, The Exploitation of the Student-Athlete: Student Athletes Deserve Compensation For Their Play in the College Athletic Arena (UNDERLINE OR ITALICIZE), says that each division 1 university should incorporate “laundry money into the scholarships of all their student-athletes.” In each scholarship, a comprised amount of money should be included. This extra money would provide the athlete with sufficient funds to address any problems that arise such as plane tickets, family emergencies or even affording social events. This proposal addresses the major obstacles stated above while facing the pay-for-play system. According to the article, by incorporating the money into the scholarship package itself, the student-athlete would not reach the employee status. Since the laundry money would not qualify the athlete as an employee this would exempt the student athlete from any labor law issues. Secondly, while incorporating this extra money this would not deprive the University of any Federal Tax Benefits. Third, the laundry money proposal avoids any Title IX concerns the university might have with stipends. Under this proposal each student athlete would receive the money regardless or sport or gender. For example, the one hundred male college football student-athletes would receive the same amount as the 10 female college tennis student athletes, which would prevent having a Title IX situation. Lastly, the laundry money solves any antitrust concerns arising under the Sherman Act (Haden, 2001, pp.680). While incorporating this extra money into the scholarship the universities would not be participating in price-fixing, because each university is free to structure the contents of their individual scholarship packages (Haden, 2001, pp. 680).
NEED A TRANSITION SENTENCE.. Many people to this day will argue that student athletes are “employees” under federal labor laws and entitled to form unions and negotiate wages, hours and working conditions (Cooper, 2011). This isn’t the case with...