No sure if anyone else has been following the documentary, but it finally releases today on Amazon and Apple TV.
The new documentary The Business of Amateurs argues that the National Collegiate Athletic Association generates billions of dollars for big-time college sports programs while compromising the education, health and futures of the unpaid athletes it profits from. It's a familiar argument that has gained more traction in recent years. But The Business of Amateurs is billed as the first documentary that challenges the NCAA "from the perspective of former student-athletes."
Here's a quick trailer/music video for the documentary:
Link to interview with the Director
UPDATE:
So I watched the documentary, these were my big takeaways:
- The injury issue is a big one, and it's probably 75% of the documentary. The NCAA has decided that they (the NCAA) are not liable for longer term player injuries (including CTE), and that it's the universities' decision how to handle these things. The NCAA has also made no effort to limit contact in practice or create a standardize concussion protocol.
- The same people who financially benefit (coaches/ADs/universities) from an athlete's on-field success also determine the athletes schedule. This is a major conflict of interest (given that there is limited time in the day, time spent on academics is time not spent on athletics). Obviously, I knew that coaches want athletes to spend as much time as possible focusing on athletics (even if they can't say it publicly), but it never occurred to me that this was "a conflict of interest" until watching this documentary.
- Two stories of stupid NCAA violations for players getting money stood out - One athlete who posted a song on iTunes (with his name), but got in trouble for it. Another story about a student who took a class at Stanford where she had to develop a mobile app and sell it (as part of the class). She got in trouble for that too.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Read the title and thought it was going to be something else about those LOLUVA uniforms.
This does look quite interesting though, and I'm sure there will be hot takes on both sides of the issue.
I still find it amusing that they call these athletes on scholarship unpaid, as if they're completing college with the same level of student loan debt that their peers have.
I don't think it's that straight forward... What if a student athlete's medical debt resulting from their sport is greater than the student loan debt of their peers? Not only that, but what about all of the potential earnings they are missing out on?
Being a student athlete isn't like spending 20 hours a week being a cashier in exchange for free tuition. There's lots of pros and cons that may or may not balance out. Outside of practice, there's off season training, studying the playbook and film room. There's rehab and recovery. For football, there's injury risk that can affect you for your entire life. You also don't have the ability to profit off your name (aka no running a camp, giving lessons, or doing freelance working in the summers, which I did a lot of growing up). Finally, there's socio-economic issues that contribute to players not being able to take advantage of their degree. There's also perks like being a local celebrity, access to tutors, and (of course) free tuition.
TL;DR - you can argue that 'unpaid' is technically inaccurate, as they are receiving a form of compensation, but it's tough to identify (1) are student athletes being fairly compensated and (2) is the NCAA acting 'unethically'.
Although I expect to be very one sided, I'm looking forward to the documentary.
Oh, I agree there are definitely some massive holes in the process like school sponsored health care that will at the very least cover all medical costs associated with injuries which occurred as a result of being on the team.
But I still hold to my point that the "these kids need to be paid" argument rings hollow when you consider the vast monetary dollar value of what they already get for free through the scholarships.
It doesn't ring hollow to me because they aren't compensated at a fair market value.
This is my thought... I don't like the idea of universities paying students, but if Michael Brewer wanted to run his own football camp for kids during the off season, he should be able to do so. If kids' parents are willing to pay Justin Bibbs to give their kids shooting lessons, I'm all for it. If Wyatt Teller turns out to be a fantastic photographer, he should be able to get paid for his work, and advertise using his name.
The thing is that there is literally zero difference between that and allowing boosters to pay for players. Because once that's available, every single recruit in the nation will be a "photographer" or "camp counselor" and get paid whatever is necessary to get them to come to the school. Any loophole would require a huge amount of oversight that probably isn't feasible. Not that I'm against the idea, just illustrating that the concept, no matter how simple a fix may seem, is incredibly complicated.
Totally agree it's not simple and won't be easy, but I think that the system is broken and needs overhaul.
The NCAA isn't preventing them from earning a fair wage. If you want them to be fairly compensated, take it up with the professional league in the NFL, who prevents anyone under a certain age from attempting to join.
The NCAA is preventing market value wage. There are boosters and endorsers lining up around the block to have their money go to athletes, but they aren't allowed.
Part of the nature of being in the NCAA is you go in knowing you won't get a paycheck, but you will be compensated in other ways. If you want one, there are other avenues to go. Players willingly choose to go to the NCAA, and then complain when the rules they knew about going into it aren't to their liking. Tough shit
That's a good point. I forgot about the good ole logic of tough shit. The system clearly isn't fucked up then. No one should ever fight for change when things aren't just.
Good talk
I agree. College football isn't the only avenue to the NFL, it just happens to be the best one. So, the athletes choose to get a free education while auditioning for the pros. The only way to keep the crooked boosters from paying athletes is to impose strict rules on the athletes. I think the stipend approach is fair, and could possibly even be increased. But the worst broken thing with the NCAA is that they are really bad at enforcing their own rules.
Only a very small percent of players are truly being underpaid in the current system. Those that are are only being held back by the 3 year NFL rule.
I don't know the details, but I would think that the majority of athletes are being paid above market value. It's only the top tier of athletes in revenue sports that are being short changed.
For sure. As we all can attest, a degree in Sports Management or Human Development or any of the other popular majors that athletics "encourages" their players to focus on have the same earning potential as engineering, law, medical or architecture.
It's like entering a lottery that you don't have to pay for, but you do have to play for, in an apprenticeship sort of way.
You get a free scholarship and stipend, training, the possibility of playing in a national spotlight, and the possibility of an NFL job.
Nobody is forced to participate.
That's terrible logic. The same could be said of any monopolistic business practice.
They have other options. This isn't a monopoly. Arena, CFL, European team or just wait until they are old enough for NFL draft.
This touches on my only real issue with the system the way it is. The NCAA and the NFL and NBA conspired to put eligibility rules in place to keep players who could be earning good professional salaries in college, where they cannot. It takes away the athletes right to compete in a free market based on their ability.
The scholarship isn't free, it is in exchange for athletic talents.
I think in a larger, yet still connected scope, is the gap between the value of the scholarship and the profits made from the business of college football.
Value of the scholarship has increased as tuition, fees, and taxes have gone up. The profits of NCAA, individual universities, conferences, etc. are of a grander scale. I tend to believe that is the root of the newer arguments.
Athletes want a larger cut of what those profits are, since they are willing participants and produce most of the sport/product on the field. Just how I see it. Everyone wants more, same as those of us with mundane jobs heh. Maybe they deserve it, however I think it creates more problems and hurts college sports.
I'd argue that the value of a scholarship/degree has decreased, even if the cost has increased. I also think part of the issue is that coaches guide players toward less profitable degrees in order to maintain eligibility. I also believe that the NCAA no longer defends players from schools, but defends schools from other schools, caring little about the player.
I don't think players want a cut of the NCAA's profit. There are opportunities for players to profit without any direct detriment to the NCAA. And the NCAA won't allow it.
Kind of agree here, but slightly different take on it.
I'd argue the inherent / personal value hasn't decreased, but the market value / premium has decreased as an undergrad degree has become commonplace. In other words, is it still as valuable to you today as it would have been years ago? I think so. Are you compensated in market as much for completing your undergrad degree today as you would have been years ago? Probably not.
I think the biggest hold up to compensating the athletes is fear, primarily fear that the culture of college football would change. Yes, it has a lot to do with the NCAA and they are bad, but I think there are many fans with this in the back of their mind. I want more to go to the athletes, but I'm not going to lie and act like I'm not fearful that the NCAA could become more like the NFL. I can't put my finger on it precisely, but there is just a culture in college sports, high school as well for that matter, that makes me love it and turns me away from the NFL. Every time I hear an athlete talk about what it means, and how much it means, to put on their school colors and represent their school, it just puts it on a different level.
That said, I think there need to be changes, first and foremost, treatment for college sports related injuries need to be covered after leaving. I understand the magnitude of which could be significant, but it is the right thing to do. First to admit I have none of the detailed knowledge of what this would or could result in or cost, but would like to see a change in that direction.
I'd rather players get more stipend money than programs build $50 million dollar facilities with laser tag and mini golf because the schools can't directly compensate the players so they have to give them stupid amenities instead