Professional athletes would of course answer yes to the question, are athletics a job? Professional as well as most collegiate athletes get paid to play so why would it not be considered a job? What about the youngsters on the YMCA teams? Are they employees of the program simply because they’re on the team? I can remember in high school my father told me you don’t have to get a real job, as long as you’re involved in sports. Your sports are your job. Since I’ve been an athlete competing in several different sports since as long as I can remember, I can tell you first hand that athletics take an innumerable amount of time, and an uncountable amount of energy much like a full time job. So should athletes be paid a full time salary?
Northwestern University’s football team recently cast their votes on whether or not form the first NCAA Players Union. If this union is in fact formed, it will make the students employees of the school. This unionization could help the athletes gain better health care, compensation, and other benefits. Although this unionization would only apply to private schools many say this is the beginning of the end of the traditional student-athlete. As a student-athlete at a private university this topic is very important to me. I am interested in learning how this Players Union or a lack there of is or isn’t going to affect me, my scholarship, and my future as a student athlete. Gregg Doyle, a national columnist for CBSSport.com strongly promotes the idea of a Players Union. A Players Union may have its benefits, but “Mark Emmert, President of the NCAA, calls a union for college athletes “a grossly inappropriate solution to the problem” that would “blow up everything about the collegiate model of athletics”” (qtd. in Doyle). Doyle believes that the union is a good idea and could be the change the NCAA is seeking. Doyle states:
Maybe this is infantile logic, maybe it’s not logical at all, but I’m OK with what I’m saying here. And what I’m saying is this: The more the leaders of college sports use their DEFCON 1 scare tactics on the college athletes trying to unionize and the public considering the idea, the more I’m willing to consider that maybe, just maybe, a union is exactly what college sport’s needs.
If this could be beneficial to the NCAA why has the idea of a Players Union not been thought of before now? While Doyle argues that the union is a good idea for college sports, News Week Sports Journalist like John Walters and Michael DePaoli agree. The two believe that college athletes work for hours a day year round helping the school bring in countless amounts of funds, and don’t get enough credit for it. The NCAA’s dictatorship characteristics won’t change unless the players unionize. Walters and DePaoli state:
By the way, it should be noted that walk-on players, i.e., those not on scholarship, are not included in Ohr’s union and would not be part of any proposed union.
This would mean that only the student athletes who get paid to play would be a part of the Players Union. The problem with this is does this mean some athletes are going to feel discriminated against? Walk-on players, or teammates without a scholarship put in just as much time and effort as the athletes with scholarships, so why shouldn’t they get the same benefits? Another problem is how are they going to decide who earns the right to make decisions like that, who earns the right to decide what players can and can’t join the union even though each player puts in just as much work as his or her teammate. Without proper ruling and authority these decisions may not be fair, but how do they decide on the proper ruling and authority?
Even as many problems evolve from this debate Doyle, Walters and DePaoli can all agree that a Players Union would be good for college athletics what does this mean for the NCAA? The main issue the NCAA has with this idea, is that they will not be as powerful over the student athletes as they once were. None of this will happen anytime soon. Countless hours will be spent bickering in court through many cases which are going to have to occur before the NCAA and colleges even consider giving an inch of slack to the athletes. Most of us in college now will not have to worry about this effecting our scholarships, all the while it is definitely something we should be informed about. While this may not be something that happens soon, the Northwestern football team, like the NCAA, isn’t giving up anytime soon. Wilfred Sheed states:
Yet sports don’t have to be the teacher’s enemy. At least the young athletes have learned discipline from somewhere, and there are no harder workers than jocks or ex-jocks […] Above all, every kind of athlete knows what many other students never will, that nothing can be learned without discipline. The words are synonymous. And in the pursuit of what they want, athletes are already used to policing themselves and, if necessary, each other. (494)
Sheed argues that though the student-athletes of Northwestern University may not know the consequences of their actions, they will still fight for what they want and continue to fight until they get it. I completely agree with Sheed’s statement about athletes and their quality of understanding discipline. As someone who grew up beginning as a young athlete, I confidently confirm Sheed’s statement by recognizing those qualities in myself. If the NCAA would just allow the players to unionize now and if the results end up doing more harm than good, then we can just return to the traditional form of student-athlete. I believe this way will save the NCAA countless hours of arguing and decision making, also I believe it will save them an abundance of money as well. Although Sheed made this statement he is still opposed to the idea of a Players Union. Sheed states:
Playing in the band at half time is still fun (no one has ever suggested paying the band), but that throwing and catching a ball is work—and that even this depends on what kind of ball you’re using. A football equals work, a volleyball is only play. Appearing on television is obviously work, but even here distinctions are made: players work cheerleaders have fun. Shooting baskets is work, helping to clean up after is its own reward. (497)
Sheed believes that pay for play changes the game from something adults do to continue the thrill they received as a child to a job that is only done because money is made from it not just for the love of the game. I think many of us can agree that it’s more entertaining to watch an athlete compete in something they have a definite passion for, rather than watching someone go through the motions because they get paid the same salary no matter if they win or lose.
There is definitely many pros and cons to the creation of a Players Union, all of which need to be thought about thoroughly. There is no doubt this process should last a while. Although many, including myself, believe a Players Union will be good for the NCAA, the ones whom can allow it still oppose. Many of us may not ever see the day that student-athletes unionize, but there is no doubt change is coming.
Works Cited
Doyle, Gregg. “Players Union Won’t Ruin College Sports; Fat Cats Already Started That.”
CBSSports.com. CBS Sports, 10 Apr. 2014. Web. 28 Apr. 2014.
Walters, John, and Michael DePaoli. “The NCAA’s Fishy Argument against a Union for
Players.” News Week. Newsweek, 25 Apr. 2014. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
Sheed, Wilfred.“Why Sports Matter.” “They Say, I Say”: The Moves that Matter in Academic
Writing: with Readings. 2nd Ed. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst. New York: Norton, 2012. 489-511. Print.
emmapopee 