Now that we have agreed that collegiate athletes are entitled to a share of the revenue they produce (estimated to be around $21 million per school annually), should we now accept that this is the end of amateurism and the concept of a true “student athlete?” Just like the curtain being pulled back in the Wizard of Oz, exposing the wizard to be just a man, the curtain has been pulled back on the concept of the student athlete who has now been revealed to be an employee.
While we are hesitant to refer to these athletes as employees, how else can they be classified? A few things to consider:
■ Establish a wage scale.
■ Determine working conditions.
■ Provide medical benefits and insurance.
■ Engage in interstate commerce.
■ Participate in revenue sharing.
■ Freedom to change “employers” at will.
So, on the horizon could be:
■ Labor unions.
■ Workman’s compensation.
■ Standards for working conditions and travel.
■ Determining what is taxable.
■ Benefits.
■ Retirement programs.
■ Eligibility — only Power Four? Only Division I? Only football?
While all those issues are very interesting, the area that I find most interesting is the yet-to-be-determined terms of employment.
■ Does compensation increase with tenure?
■ Are the employees able to receive additional outside income and is that income capped or controlled in some form?
■ Must an employee complete an entire season with his or her current employer?
Finally, as a condition of paid employment, can the employer mandate certain forms of behavior and the quality of performance? Simply stated, can the employer (University XYZ) mandate that the employee be enrolled as a student in a certain number of credit hours and maintain a certain grade-point average to be able to “work and be compensated for that work?” I’m betting that there are agents and law firms considering this issue and planning a strategy to put this in the hands of the legislature and/or the courts.
The transfer portal, and the number of NFL draftees who competed at multiple universities, calls into question the priority placed upon academics. In 2025 and beyond, it would seem that employee performance at athletic venues will far and away be the determining factor for “eligibility” to share the $21 million annual purse.
In my humble opinion, here is where we are headed:
1) More athletes will want to share in the revenue that is being produced regardless of their sport (all athletes contribute to the brand equity of athletics at the university), thus the size of the purse will need to increase.
2) The need to generate additional revenue is most easily addressed by increasing the number of games and the days and nights of the week when those games can be scheduled, broadcast and streamed.
3) Additional games will require the employees to practice, train, travel and participate in significantly more hours — limiting their opportunities for other activities outside their respective “jobs.”
4) Being a full-time employee will become the norm and the student athlete will cease to exist.
As a career academic and staunch believer in academics as a vehicle for personal growth and development, some might think I’m being hypocritical advocating for a system in which being a student becomes an option and not a requirement. Trust me, I’m not. I have come to understand that a significant number of what we refer to as student athletes attend college for the primary purpose of improving their skills to attract interest and ultimately play professionally. I have attended and worked at academic institutions that have been placed on probation and have had championships vacated by the NCAA because of issues related to academic eligibility or because of athletes receiving payment or other forms of compensation.
Therefore, I propose (with the support of my doctoral adviser, Dr. John F. Rooney, author of “The Recruiting Game”) that the following system be considered as part of the employer/employee contractual obligations:
Upon the completion of his or her employment eligibility at the collegiate level (4-5 years) or at the culmination of a career as a professional athlete, the “Employee” is guaranteed the following educational benefit: Any employee who has satisfactorily completed his or her agreed-upon athletic employment is eligible to attend any educational institution that has served as an employer in a similar arrangement to receive a tuition-free enrollment in an undergraduate degree program of his or her choosing. This reciprocity between participating employers better serves the employees who have satisfied their terms of employment and may prefer an institution that is closer to their preferred location or may offer a course of study that is unique and not readily available elsewhere.
This approach has several core advantages and desirable outcomes. First, it addresses the opportunity for universities to generate the funding necessary to support the sport/entertainment factories they have become. Second, it takes a system that has been called into question and establishes a logical course of action for the institutions to comply with the settlement. Finally, it lets the athletic student accept employment that benefits him/her financially in the short term while still providing an educational benefit in the long term.
Dear readers: This will be my last column until September, as I take time to deal with a health issue. I appreciate your readership and support, and will come back with an intriguing topic this fall.
Bill Sutton (billsuttonandassociates@gmail.com) is a professor of practice at the University of South Carolina, director emeritus of the Vinik Graduate Sport Business Program at USF and principal of Bill Sutton & Associates. Follow him on X @Sutton_ImpactU.
Questions about OPED guidelines or letters to the editor? Email editor Jake Kyler at jkyler@sportsbusinessjournal.com
