In one of the most-watched television events of the year, Louisville beat Michigan on Monday night to become the NCAA mens basketball champion, bringing the four-week, 67-game March Madness tournament to an end.
March Madness takes hold of Americas attention in a way that few other events sporting or otherwise can. Millions of Americans, from die-hard sports fanatics to those who call three-pointers touchdowns, fill out brackets every year, and just as many tune in to watch Cinderella stories and office pools play out.
But at the heart of all the fanfare lies a stark reality: The 30 players who competed before tens of millions of people on Monday are a bunch of college kids, no older than you or me. Between nationally televised games, they study for classes, hang out with friends and dream of someday making it to the big leagues.
Under current NCAA rules, a student athlete can receive up to $300 per year to attend non-scholastic events, in addition to funds received to participate in athletics. Projected NCAA revenue for 2012-2013 is $797 million, 90 percent of which comes from media rights deals like the 14-year, $10.8 billion agreement for March Madness. The NCAA returns 60 percent, or $478 million a year to Division I programs.
Each of the four teams playing last weekend generated $9.5 million for their respective athletic conferences under the NCAAs Revenue Distribution Plan. Ignoring coaches and staff, Michigans 15 players have each earned more than $60,000 for their team in their March Madness run alone. Each one will receive $300 this year.
Michigans coach, John Beilein, will receive $1.3 million plus bonuses this season.
Such massive amounts of money raise the question: Can we really call NCAA players students at all? Is it fair to say they are paid with a degree, despite the millions of dollars in revenue such student-athletes generate for their schools?
For some athletes, the answer is certainly yes. More than 70 percent of Division I basketball and football players graduate with degrees from top schools, many of whom would not have been able to attend without NCAA-supported scholarships.
But these revenues do not stop after players have graduated. In a landmark case against the NCAA, former UCLA power forward Ed OBannon alleges that the NCAA and UCLA profited from his name and image without his agreement, using OBannons likeness to promote ticket sales and market video games.
OBannons case is common in the NCAA, as schools continue to profit from star players long after they leave for bigger and better things. Syracuse University recently retired Carmelo Anthonys number, yet still sells apparel featuring Anthonys name and number in its team store. Anthony, who now makes nearly $20 million a year with the New York Knicks, attended played, really just one year at the school.
After Louisvilles Kevin Ware suffered a chilling leg fracture on an otherwise routine play, the Louisville team store featured and then quickly pulled Adidas t-shirts sporting Ri5e [Wares number] to the occasion. Ware, whose injury required surgery and who will not play until next season, would receive no share of the revenues from such apparel.
Despite such obvious profiteering, the NCAA does provide strong support for schools that dont make deep runs into the playoffs or produce professional-caliber players every year. For these schools, a simple salary or revenue-sharing solution would put many less-profitable programs into debt.
There is no obvious answer. Cleary the system is broken, but, beyond that simple conclusion, the NCAA and student athletes have a long legal battle before them. Some issues should come easily, like offering workers compensation or similar aid to players like Ware who suffer injuries while competing. Whether institutions of learning will or even should pay their players will take far more debate.
--
Walt Laws-MacDonald is a sophomore majoring in quantitative economics. He can be reached at Walt.Laws_MacDonald@tufts.edu.
