Editorial: Athletes hardly suffer lack of perks

Correction appended

Footing the bill for a student-athlete’s tuition, books,
housing and meals isn’t enough; the NCAA and universities
should also be paying for their health insurance and their laundry
““ at least, that’s according to a lawsuit filed against
the association.

The class-action lawsuit, which was filed last week on behalf of
three former college football players ““ one of them Brian
Polak of UCLA ““ alleges that when scholarship athletes are
given “free rides” by a university, they in fact have
to pay up to $3,000 a year out of their own pockets for
miscellaneous living expenses because of NCAA limits on athletic
scholarships. This imposes “a lower standard of living and
significant hardships on many student-athletes,” according to
the suit.

The plaintiffs are seeking to lift the NCAA ban and allow
scholarships to pay more money for more things ““ such as
travel and an athlete’s washing and drying. They’re
also seeking damages of about $2,500 per athlete for 98 athletes,
which could lead to over $100 million that the NCAA might have to
pay to other athletes.

Student-athletes are valuable members of a university community.
They’re talented, accomplished individuals who have the
weighty responsibility of bearing their school’s good name in
the public arena, more so than average students. This is especially
true at an athletic powerhouse like UCLA, where campus sentiment
can rise or fall based on the exploits of standout student-athletes
like Maurice Drew (football) and Arron Afflalo (men’s
basketball).

But we’d also be kidding ourselves if we said
student-athletes didn’t already receive a lot of perks for
their troubles. Besides scholarships that take care of the cost of
tuition, fees, books and room and board, plenty of Division 1A
schools (including this one) give athletes preferential housing,
on-campus buffets, free merchandise and equipment and special
accommodations for their academic needs.

And let’s not forget all the intangibles, like an instant
shot at national fame. What other group of students has the ability
to receive so much media attention for doing what they do?

No, compared to other university students ““ especially
those who have to work their way through college and pay the full
price of admission ““ it is overblown to suggest
student-athletes have to endure “a lower standard of living
and significant hardships.” And a struggling student-athlete
can take other scholarships or a job like any other student.

The lawsuit also argues that, given the millions of dollars
universities rake in from athletic merchandise sales and broadcast
contracts, “the NCAA and its member institutions do not allow
student-athletes the share of the revenues that they would obtain
in a more competitive market.”.

But that ignores the whole premise of being a student-athlete.
Student-athletes are at a university to develop either their
athletic skills so they can make the jump to the professionals, or
their education if they have no interest in turning pro. Either
way, they’re not here to share in the profit ““ at
least, they shouldn’t be.

There’s also the NCAA’s argument that getting rid of
the scholarship cap would give well-endowed schools an unfair
advantage by allowing them to offer exorbitant amounts of money to
recruits.

But the principle of the matter is what concerns us the most.
After all, we have to pay for our own laundry, and we take comfort
in the fact that the superstar on the basketball team has to
wrestle with the same quarter machine that we do.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *