Are they getting what theyre worth?

College athletes receiving additional benefits

Brandon Berrio
Charles Voelker
Nikki Reeves
Taylor Christian

May 2014

Table of Contents
Background ...................................................................................................................... 1
Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 2
Secondary Research ......................................................................................................... 2
Survey Research ............................................................................................................... 4
Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 4
Description of Participants ........................................................................................... 4
Results .......................................................................................................................... 5
Focus Group ..................................................................................................................... 8
Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 8
Description of Participants ........................................................................................... 8
Results .......................................................................................................................... 8
Message Design .............................................................................................................. 11
Description of Messages ............................................................................................. 11
Rationale ..................................................................................................................... 11

Are they getting what theyre worth?

ii

Are they getting what theyre worth?

College athletes receiving additional benefits

Background
The issue of studentathletes receiving additional benefits is a
hot topic with the recent publicity

Suspendisse potenti.

concerning the NCAA and Northwestern University. Former members of the

Northwestern football team were granted the right to form a union. The university is
still fighting the rules held by the Illinois State Court. The former athletes argued that
members of the college football team are employees of the school, which entitles them to
the labor rights granted under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
This topic is very controversial because many people argue that student-athletes
already receive several benefits, such as scholarships, free travel and tutors. By allowing
student-athletes to be employees of the university, it would change their status and
responsibilities. Many also argue that providing additional benefits and granting
employee status would change the level of college athletics from amateur to
professional. PRiodoic Communication was charged with conducting research to
Are they getting what theyre worth?

determine how LSU students feel about student-athletes and if they are in favor of
student-athletes receiving additional benefits.

Objectives
1. Determine students perceptions of student-athletes inside and outside of the
classroom.
2. Identify which additional benefits students would prefer for student-athletes to
receive.
3. Determine if students would perceive student-athletes as amateurs or
professionals if they received additional benefits.

Secondary Research
54% of college students believe student-athletes should be paid (Schneider).
76% believe that cheating would decline if student-athletes were paid (Schneider).
63% said student-athletes should be paid because of the amount of money they bring
in to the institution (Schneider).
Females were more likely to base their perception on the fact that a scholarship
doesnt cover all costs to attend college. Of those that believed student-athletes
should not be paid, 49% believe athletes are already paid through an athletic
scholarship. 39% think athletic departments do not have enough money for
additional payment beyond a scholarship. Many have wondered where the extra

Are they getting what theyre worth?

money would actually come from.

56% believe the additional money should come from the athletic department
(McCormick).
50% believe additional revenue generating contracts, such as shoe and television
contracts could cover the costs (McCormick).
24% of students said increasing tuition could cover the costs.
On average college football players at Division 1 schools are worth $121,048. That
number doubles for the top 10 football programs, which includes LSU. A football
player from a top 10 program is worth between $345,000-$514,000.
Basketball players at Division 1 schools are worth around $265,027. That number
increases to $620,000-$1 million at a top 10 program (Staurowsky).
Time commitment for football averages 53 hours a week during the season. This is in
addition to class-time and study hall hours.
Time commitment for other sports varies, but the average falls around 35-45 hours a
week, which is the requirement to be labeled as a full-time employee
(McCormick). While these athletes spend 35+ hours a week dedicated to their
sport, the NCAA regulates the amount of aid student-athletes get. A free-ride is
far from what most athletes receive.
For 2009-2010, the average scholarship for full scholarship athletes in a FBS
(Football Bowl Series) program was $3,222. This means that most studentathletes who do not receive other aid are living at or below the poverty line
(Staurowsky).
Are they getting what theyre worth?

 There is no guarantee of financial security. Even if an athlete is on scholarship, their

financial aid package could be reduced or even terminated at the end of the
season if an individual athlete fails to perform at a certain level or gets injured
(McCormick).

Survey Research
Objectives
1. Determine students perceptions of student-athletes inside and outside of the
classroom.
2. Identify which additional benefits fans would prefer for players to receive.
3. Determine if students would perceive student-athletes as amateurs or
professionals if they received additional benefits.

Description of Participants
PRiodic Communication surveyed 95 participants on their perceptions of

Gender

student- athletes. All of the participants were

LSU students. The majority of the participants
were 21 years old and in their junior year of

Male
42% Female
58%
Are they getting what theyre worth?

80%

college. There were more women (58%) than

60%
40%

men (42%) surveyed and 11% of the

20%
0%
Both Levels of
Sport

participants were current or former student-

One Level of
Sport

athletes. In addition to their gender, age and

classification, 79% of respondents said that they are fans of both professional and
collegiate sports and 21% followed either only college or only professional sports.

Results
Participants ranked LSU sports in order of importance to the university and by how
closely they follow each sport. The first five sports were the same for both. Football led
the way with 83.7% of participants following it closely.

Importance

Closely follow

Football

83.7% of participants

Baseball

43.5% of participants

Mens Basketball

28.3% of participants

Gymnastics

25.0% of participants

Womens Basketball 16.3% of participants

Are they getting what theyre worth?

When asked if they believe student-athletes had an unfair advantage in the

classroom, 58% of participants either chose Agree or Strongly Agree. The majority of
our participants (59%) do not believe that student-athletes are held to a higher standard
in the classroom and 61% do not believe that student-athletes are treated the same as
regular students in the classroom.
When asked whether a student-athletes first priority was school or sport, 57.9%
chose sport and 70% believe that student-athletes spend a sufficient amount of time on
their sport.
50% of participants either agree or strongly agree that student-athletes should
not be paid with 9.1% being undecided and 30.3% either disagreeing or strongly
disagreeing.
Participants ranked benefits in order of most preferential. Relinquishing brands
was the preferred choice with 52% of participants ranking it first. Relinquishing brands
would allow student-athletes to benefit off his/her image, likeness and name. This
would include commercials and merchandise sales.
The second-most preferred option was for student-athletes to receive additional
stipends (44%). This would mean that all student-athletes would receive the same
amount, regardless of sport, ability or gender.
The two least preferred options were pay-for-play and other. Pay-for-play would
start off as the same amount for everyone, but has the potential to increase or decrease
based on performance.

Are they getting what theyre worth?

Benefits
1. Relinquishing Brands (52%)
2. Additional Stipends (44%)
3. Pay-for-play (tied for least preferable)
3. Other (tied for least preferable)

60% of participants believe that student-athletes currently receive enough

benefits and 47% of participants think that it is okay for the NCAA to use a players
name, number or likeness on merchandise.
Even though most participants said their view of college athletics would change if
student-athletes were paid (61%), their
fandom and support would not change. 77%

Would your view of college athletics

change if student-athletes were paid?
70
60

of participants said they would still attend

college-sporting events if student-athletes
were paid.
The results showed a correlation

50
40
30
20
10
0
Yes

between participants who believe that

student-athletes are employees of the
university and participants who are in favor

No

Undecided

Would you still attend college sporting

events if student-athletes were paid?
90
80
70
60

of student-athletes receiving additional

50
40
30
20
10
0
Yes

Are they getting what theyre worth?

No

Undecided

I don't
attend them
now

benefits.

Focus Group
Objectives
1. Identify students perceptions of student-athletes.
2. Identify students views of student-athletes receiving additional benefits.

Description of Participants
All of our participants were LSU students with a basic knowledge of sports. Out of
the 12 participants, we had two former athletes and a son of an LSU football coach.

Results
During the focus groups, PRiodic Communication conducted two activities.
During the first activity, participants were asked to write down words that came to mind
when they thought of student-athletes. Many of the participants chose words such as
spoiled and glorified. One participant explained spoiled in a positive way, saying that
student- athletes have worked hard to get where they are and deserve it. Another said
that certain student-athletes have come to expect things and expect special treatment
just because of their status.
Brands were a topic brought up in both focus groups. From our discussions, we

Are they getting what theyre worth?

found that participants do not think basketball players should be able to claim their
brand in college because they are only required to play in college for one year. Anthony
Davis unibrow was brought up because he was instantly branded at Kentucky and
didnt have to wait long to cash in on that.
On the other hand, football players have to sit on their brand for three years
before they can use it. Johnny Manziel and his Johnny Football nickname was the
example given for this. Overall, participants agreed that it was not fair that schools
profit off players. One participant made the point that players jerseys are being sold and
the profit goes directly to the university.
Participants in both focus groups were mixed on whether they thought studentathletes should receive additional stipends or pay-for-play, but the majority believed
athletes should have access to their brand.
The disapproval of players receiving additional benefits does not affect whether
fans will go to games. However, it does affect the perception fans have on their status of
being student-athletes. If student-athletes were paid, participants agreed that they
would see them as pro athletes. Pro athletes are held to a higher standard than college
athletes, so issues of player conduct came up. One participant said that drug testing and
an athletes behavior off the field should be more strictly regulated than it currently is.
When asked if players use their free time and current benefits in a proactive way,
the response was split. One participant said it depends on each athlete separately and
that you cant base an entire sport or team off of the actions of a single athlete.
Another made a point that student-athletes work so hard that you cant blame them for

Are they getting what theyre worth?

wanting a release from the stress and obligations. Others said they dont think athletes
use their time in a proactive way and that the only reason they usually go to class is
because they have to meet attendance requirements from their coaches.
Our last activity was the courtroom drama where we had two teams of three
argue whether players should or should not receive benefits.
Arguments for:
o Some players hit their prime in college, so they should have access to their
brand while they are at their peak.
o Granting access to brands might help cushion a player financially after an
injury.
o Put a cap on how much schools can pay.
Arguments against:
o They dont have time to get a job...engineering students dont have time. Why
cant they take out a loan? Other students take out loans.
o Payment is a bad idea because making student-athletes an employee is a bad
idea. It would create too much confusion. Who do you pay? Do certain players deserve
more? How much is too much?
o Sports and school are supposed to coexist.
Again, the focus groups want to talk about brands when arguing for the players.
Participants also referenced players like Vince Young who did not have a chance to hit
his prime at the professional level. Young made a lot of money for the University of
Texas, but he never saw any of it.

Are they getting what theyre worth?

10

Message Design
Description of Messages
. Flier- The flier has important information regarding student-athletes. How much
time they spend at practice, meetings, games, workouts etc.; how much players
are generally worth, the amount of profit the university receives from each sport
and the chance of student-athletes going pro.
. Video- A video of student-athletes talking about their weekly schedule.

Rationale
Flier- From our focus groups, PRiodic Communication found that a lot of our
participants did not know what being a student-athlete entails. This flier would
be handed out at games to target those who regularly attend sporting events.
Video- From our focus groups, PRiodic Communication found that some of our
participants found it hard to empathize with student-athletes because they
lumped them into a group by sport. A video would be more personal and allow
for the audience to actually see what student-athletes do during an average day.

Are they getting what theyre worth?

11

References
McCormick, R. A., & McCormick, A. C. (2006). The myth of the student-athlete: The
college athlete as employee. Washington Law Review 81,71-157. Retrieved from
http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspacelaw/bitstream/handle/1773.1/262/81washlrev71.pdf.
Schneider, R. (2011) College Students Perception of the Payments of Intercollegiate
Student Athletes Retrieved from
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/5010946/college-studentsperceptions-payment-intercollegiate-student-athletes
Staurowsky, Ellen (2010.) The Price of Poverty in Big Time College Sport. Retrieved
from http://www.ncpanow.org/research/study-the-price-of-poverty-in-big-timecollege-sport

Are they getting what theyre worth?

12