Written by The NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament is in full swing, and teams are jockeying for this year’s championship trophy. The tournament is both a cultural staple, with millions of Americans filling out brackets each year, and a massive revenue source for the NCAA, top universities, and bettors. In 2019, March Madness generated over a billion dollars for the NCAA (which, incidentally, is a nonprofit). Altogether, individuals across the country bet over $8.5 billion on their brackets.
Since this year’s tournament allows only 25% capacity in its arenas, ticket revenue will certainly decrease. But TV rights, advertising, and corporate sponsorships still produce hundreds of millions of dollars each year. With such an astounding amount of money at play, it’s a good time to examine who really brings it in: the players, who receive none of it.
It’s clear that the NCAA needs to reform its relationship with student-athletes. The organization’s strict policy on “maintaining amateurism” has given rise to absurd regulations. Student-athletes are forbidden from accepting any compensation. This means that students can’t accept gifts, food, money to offset training expenses, endorse commercial products, or be represented by an agent. Take Utah basketball coach Rick Majerus, who was penalized for taking players out to lunch at fast-food restaurants. In one instance, he bought lunch for a student whose father passed away a few days prior. “I guess the only thing I should have done was said, ‘You owe me nine dollars for the ham and eggs and sausage,’” he said after his suspension.
Some economists even claim that the NCAA is a cartel, enriching itself and universities at the expense of stifled, powerless athletes. The NCAA and its head, Mark Emmert, have resisted calls for reform. But he may be forced to take action.
Political momentum is shifting toward allowing athletes to be compensated for their efforts. California passed the Fair Pay to Play Act in 2019, permitting college athletes to make money off of endorsement deals. A federal College Athletics Bill of Rights has been introduced in the Senate, which would extend healthcare access to athletes who lose scholarships and require universities to fund athletes as long as it takes them to finish their degrees. The Department of Justice has thrown its support behind college athletes in NCAA v. Alston, an antitrust case that the Supreme Court will hear on March 31. Two-thirds of the American public believes athletes should be permitted to make money off of endorsement deals. Half supports revenue going directly to athletes.
Top athletes, particularly basketball players, are spurning college sports for higher-paying opportunities. Jalen Green, 2021’s No. 1 high school basketball prospect, opted to play in the NBA G League. LaMelo Ball, the third pick in the 2020 NBA Draft, chose to play a year in Australia’s NBL, where he won Rookie of the Year. Ball was the frontrunner to win the same award in the NBA before a broken wrist ended his season. RJ Hampton, another top rookie, joined the NBL because he wanted to “play with grown men and not have to juggle books and basketball.” Hampton wanted to “change the culture” of the sport by forgoing a college career.
The toxic culture surrounding the treatment of college athletes is pushing high-profile prospects to search for adequate compensation elsewhere. Athletes are recognizing that college sports can be a bad deal and that there are viable alternatives that would allow them to earn money.
The NCAA faces an existential dilemma on this issue. On the one hand, Emmert could remain inflexible and refuse to reform the association’s relationship with its greatest revenue source — something that seems unsustainable given the popular and legislative momentum in favor of the athletes. On the other hand, the NCAA could acknowledge that it treats athletes unfairly and work to restructure its model.
The NCAA’s predicament is a lesson to other leaders. The willingness to adapt to changing circumstances is crucial for the sustainability of an organization. Emmert’s inflexibility on this issue could spell the demise of amateur college sports, as more athletes choose to compete overseas, professionally, or in developmental programs. The NCAA risks becoming obsolete as athletes recognize their worth and pursue compensation for their efforts. Oftentimes, change, though difficult, is in the interest of survival. It certainly is in the case of the NCAA.