Shoji 1

The Natural Consequences of Profit Driven Mentalities

Western Oregon University

Malia Shoji
 Shoji 2

The Natural Consequences of Profit Driven Mentalities

Introduction

The increasing markets surrounding college sports are evidence of the changing

role college athletics plays in society today. With the help of advancing technologies,

new industries, such as video games, TV networks, online streaming and video

exchange profit off of college athletics. The result has been tension and entitlement

from the student-athletes, whose athletic performances are the catalyst for the profits

being made by outside industries. While todays college athletes come under fire for

being greedy, entitled, and ethically shallow, the diminishing values of student athletes

are a common part of public debate. The tensions within college athletics are the

natural consequences stemming from the big business college athletics is evolving into

and the other industries now profiting off of the social production of student athletes.

Although many argue for profit incentives as a solution to issues such as student

athletes fight for fair compensation, increasing commercial models and mentalities will

only increase the challenges associated with protecting the endangered environment of

college athletics. Introducing profit sharing into the community of college athletics

raises the same issues as introducing pay into a sharing economy. Paying athletes is

not as simple a solution as it sounds but rather a complex issue that requires thoughtful

reform efforts if college athletics, as a sharing economy, is to survive the growth and

influence of the twenty-first century.

Fair Compensation in the Big Business of College Athletics

Many argue for profit incentives to appease disgruntled student athletes as the

arena of college sports is seen as big business. Millions of dollars are generated,
 Shoji 3

across numerous markets, off of the performances of student athletes. As society

watches the increasing amounts of money being made, it is not just those closest to

athletes that are concerned with the current compensation model of college athletics.

Professor of Public Policy, Economics and Law at Duke University, Charles T. Clotfelter

(2012), describes the current situation facing student athletes as exploitation. He goes

on to compare athletes to inmates saying that college athletes have few of the

procedural rights available to residents in the criminal justice system and are the only

group of producers in big-time college sports who do not enjoy the fruits of commercial

success (Clotfelter, 2012). Even those who have made a living in the community of

college athletics share their concerns of how we are treating student athletes today.

Walter Byers (1995), former Executive Director of the National Collegiate Athletic

Association (NCAA), which governs all of college athletics, provides the analogy of

plantation salaries to describe the current compensation of student athletes. The first

Executive Director, who retired in 1987, describes this plantation mentality in saying,

The college player cannot sell his own feet (the coach does that) nor can he sell his

own name (the college will do that) (Byers, 1995, p. 390).

Powerful associations, such as Byers, contributed to the growth of public

concern around the impact of technology, law, and economy on the arena of college
athletics. One of those impacts is the cognitive dissonance associated with the idea of
student athletes being poor college students while simultaneously assisting in the
Commented [MB1]: What is the impact of technology?
You mention it here, but never again in your paper.
Commented [MS2R1]: Does the altered introduction
provide enough technology context up to this point?
Commented [Office3R1]: YesI think this works.

generation of millions of dollars. The polarizing lifestyles of big business and the

stereotypical poor college student have student athletes rebelling to right the wrongs of

unfair compensation. Actions such as accepting personal money in the recruiting

 Shoji 4

process and student athletes accepting extra benefits, whether discounts or straight

gifts, and point-shaving to profit from sports gambling, are all the direct results of the

increasing prevalence of big time profits in college athletics. Despite the illegality of

these actions, Pulitzer Prize winning historian and former high school football star,

Taylor Branch (2011), defends the actions of student athletes by saying The tragedy at

the heart of college sports is not that some college athletes are getting paid, but that

more of them are not (Branch, 2011, p. 5). These concerns over fair compensation Commented [MB4]: Date goes immediately after
authors name in the sentence. In this location, you should
have the page number.
stem from the paradoxical identity of big business which has turned into a common
Commented [Office5R4]: Im not sure why you
place descriptor of twenty-first century college athletics. highlighted this, but it still needs a page number instead of
this final citation.

College Athletics as a Sharing Economy

What is more concerning than the structure of profit allocation is the detrimental

impact of profits on the economy of college athletics. As profits, enterprise, and greed Commented [Office6]: APA requires a serial comma
before the conjunction in a list.
emerge as the catalysts of great change in college athletics, the destructive results

provide evidence of the sharing economy inherent in college athletics. By definition, an

economy is a practice of exchange that is self-sustaining or sustained over time. What

makes an economy sharing or commercial is the terms of what is exchanged (Lessig,

2008, p. 218). When the normal term of exchange is monetary, economies take on the

characteristics of a commercial model; where in contrast, non-monetary exchange is

characteristic of a sharing economy (Lessig, 2008). The sharing economy of college

athletics is driven by the motivation to exchange athletic participation for a college

education. The driving engine for the environment of college athletics is not the market,

which runs the commercial economy, but the intrinsic motivation to compete and learn.
 Shoji 5

Philosopher Michael Walzer has described generally how people live within

overlapping spheres of social understanding. What is obviously appropriate in some

spheres is obviously inappropriate in others (Lessig, 2008, p. 270). The use of profits

as a term of exchange in a sharing economy like college athletics is not only

inappropriate, it is detrimental to the delicate relationship between student athletes and

the motivation to learn. Take for example the economy of friendship and how

inappropriate it would be for a friend to offer you fifty dollars to apologize for missing a

lunch date (Lessig, 2008, p. 220). By adding money as a term of exchange in the

sharing economy of friendship, the relationship is forever changed. What is left when a

friend offers profits in exchange for a relationship is a commercial economy model of

therapy (Lessig, 2008). The same inappropriateness could be said for paying a student

athlete for their participation, just as the person paying for a missed lunch is no longer a

friend, an athlete being paid is no longer an amateur student, rather a professional

athlete.

Due to the ambiguous identity between commercial and sharing economic

models the ever increasing presence of profits has clouded the educational and

competitive motivations of todays student athletes. The resulting impact is a

decreasing value of a college degree, the historically well-accepted term of exchange in

college sports, which now leaves student athletes feeling short changed. Understanding

the differences between models of commercial economies and sharing economies is

essential for those in the position to reform college athletics. Issues such as student

athletes motivational shifts from earning a degree to earning a paycheck require the
 Shoji 6

deconstruction of commercial influences on a social economy. Only then, can

causation be properly separated from correlating issues like fair compensation.

Natural Consequences of Commercial Influences

It is the increased overlap of the commercial sphere that is confusing what is

really at the heart of tensions amidst college athletics. The arguments presented in the

beginning of this paper fuel the concept that student athletes are employees and should

be treated as such. This paradigm shift has changed the motivations of student athletes

sparking various labor lawsuits surrounding the issues of workmans compensation for

disabled athletes and fair compensation for those performing. One of the most

recognizable lawsuits was in 2009, when former U.C.L.A basketball player, Ed

OBannon, sued the NCAA for the profits being made off of his name and likeness.

Author Robert Levine (2011), investigates similar claims of fair compensation within the

music industry in his book Free Ride. Levines (2011) objection to artists, who share

similar claims to athletes like Ed OBannon, is that in entering into a contract, with a

production company or with the NCAA, compensation is not an issue of fairness, but

simply a detail of an agreement.

The feeling of unfair is understandable when unconnected third-party

companies like video game and merchandising companies begin to generate millions off

of student athlete performances. Levine (2011) refers to these companies as

parasites, which by definition are organisms benefiting at the hosts expense. Similar

to the music industry when an artist signs with a record label, an incoming freshman
 Shoji 7

student athlete signs a National Letter of Intent (NLI), college athletics version of a

contract. Athletes, like artists, sign over the rights to profits from their name and

likeness. This relinquishing of profits seems fair as a necessary means for sustaining

the environment of college athletics. But now as athletic performances are being

LEGO-ized, or turned into a block that others can profit from merely by attaching their

business upon the existing structure of college athletics, poor college students have a

right to be upset (Lessig, 2008, p. 254). Merchandise companies, television networks,

video game companies and corporate parasites alike are not who student athletes

agree upon partnering with when signing their NLI. Although the questions of

unfairness may be just, Levine (2011) proposes a powerful question to disgruntled

artists and athletes, which is are we fighting the right enemy, the true parasite? In the

case of college athletics athletes fighting against their housing colleges/universities, it

leaves the true corporate parasites free to continue to profit on behalf of athletic

performances. The financial benefits of kickbacks from corporate parasites increase the

dependency on commercial models, cementing the identity of big business to the

identity of college athletics.

It is this threat and exploitation of student athletes that the NCAA must work to

protect, not by further entrenching commercial models and mentalities but by protecting

the sanctity of college athletics as a sharing economy. Further ambiguity between

commercial and sharing economy models leaves the NCAA blind to enterprise influence

and ineffective in their reform efforts. Where athletes are feeling unfairly compensated,

commercial involvement is what needs to be under review, not changing the terms of

exchange for student athletes to monetary compensation. Working towards a common

 Shoji 8

goal has been a historic pillar in sport, and an essential characteristic in sharing

economies (Lessig, 2008). For college athletics this common goal has historically been

to develop, educate and help athletes earn a college degree and to participate in

college athletics as a way of paying for that degree. These terms of exchange have

created a beautiful underlying market force that has grown college athletics into a

strongly populated and ever growing sharing economy. The commercial motivations

have muddled the common goal for educational institutions and college athletic

departments. Participation in a sharing economy is not driven by the allure of profits in

exchange for participation; this type of motivation is inherent within a commercial

economy motivation. Sharing economies attract participants who are driven by altruism

or an inherent creative force that may not allow artists, athletes or any other social

actors, to do anything but participate (Boyle,2008).

An example of how commercial motivations do not thrive within a sharing

economy can be found in what college athletics calls the one and dones. A one and

done athlete enters college athletics only to be drafted into the professional league the

following year. Some may argue that compensation would help ease those athletes

who are unhappy with the current terms of exchange, but instead maybe those athletes

are better suited for a commercial economy like professional sports.

There are many cases of student athletes foregoing the allure of playing for one

year and then going pro even if that puts their potential earnings at risk. Star football

player and former quarterback for the Oregon Ducks, Marcus Mariota, was speculated

to go pro after just his sophomore year but announced he would be foregoing the draft

to compete again his junior year. Although it could be argued that Mariota only stayed
 Shoji 9

to fulfill his goals of winning a championship or be awarded the Heisman Trophy he

failed to receive in his sophomore year, there are cases such as Cardale Jones that

illustrate some athletes intrinsic motivation for the college athletic experience despite

personal athletic accomplishments. Cardale Jones of Ohio State announced he would

be foregoing the NFL draft despite the fact he may never be as highly drafted since he

had just won a National Championship (Oppenheimer, 2015). These are just two

examples of athletes choosing academics over compensation, but stories like these get

less national attention than stories of academic fraud and lawsuits for fair

compensation, only deepening the misconception that to athletes, academics do not

matter, profits do.

Big Business Reform Initiatives in College Athletics

The effects of lawsuits like Ed OBannons highlight the shortsighted

understanding of what motivates participation in a sharing economy such as college

athletics. Creating reform efforts based on the assumption that athletes are losing

motivation to participate based on the fact they are not paid or because they no longer

value education is severely misguided. Professor of psychology and marketing at the

Anderson School of Management at UCLA, Daniel Oppenheimer (2015), cautiously

warns us about the effects of this pluralistic ignorance which causes people to engage

in public behaviors that align more with the perceived norms than with their true

preferences. Examples of this can be seen in athletes such as Cardale Jones who

once, tweeted he came to Ohio State to play football not to play school and that

classes were pointless (Oppenheimer, 2015). Should athletic reform be built around

comments from frustrated students or should we be able to see the pluralistic ignorance
 Shoji 10

amongst student athletes. Jones later actions prove that his tweet did not reflect his

true feelings regarding his intentions to attend Ohio State as a student athlete. After

choosing to delay his professional career Jones stated Being a first-round draft pick

means nothing to me without my education. It is the job of colleges, universities and

ruling organizations such as the NCAA to see the misguided motivations of twenty-first

century student-athletes for what they really are: cognitive dissonance of what we know

college athletics used to be and the big business it has become. Pluralistic ignorance

will be lifted by student athletes once the actions and structure of college athletics

reflects more value from a college education than from the millions of dollars made off

of college athletic performances. The one thing that will feed into the false assumption

that a degree is no longer enough motivation to participate in college athletics is to treat

athletes like employees and start paying them a salary.

What the Ed OBannon lawsuit highlighted was the power of a national platform

in getting actionable reform initiatives from the NCAA; but more importantly that action

exposed the NCAAs growing commercial mentality. In the wake of the Ed OBannon

lawsuit, the NCAA and Power Five conferences, which includes Big East, Atlantic

Coast, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12, and South Eastern Conferences, are celebrating what

they see as a successful reform initiative called the Cost of Attendance (COA) increase.

In passing this bylaw, schools in the Power Five conferences are now allowed to

compensate student athletes above and beyond the cost of their scholarship. These

efforts are evidence of the misguided understanding of what motivates student athletes.

Commercial influences and ignorance of social discourse hide what is at the heart of

student-athlete tensions. It is less about fair compensation and rather the injustice of
 Shoji 11

corporate parasites benefiting off of their performance without a visible benefit back to

the social producers, student-athletes.

Even after the COA increase passed and was implemented, athletes like

Oklahoma football player Ty Darlington bravely speak out, questioning the priority of

reform actions. Upset that the issue of student athlete time demands still has not been

addressed, Darlington stated, I feel like this should be done already (Oppenheimer,

2015). And he is right, the treatment and balance of being a student and an athlete are

truly what threatens the sharing economy of college athletics. While the relief of a

compensation may temporarily ease disgruntled student athletes, the use of paychecks

to push through 35-40 hours a week spent on athletic-related activity alone causes

more student athletes to become part of the jaded work force that just punches the time

clock for a paycheck. It is the loss of passion for the sport they play, the time to invest

in their education, and an employee mentality caused by the structure of college

athletics that leaves student athletes short changed.

Conclusion

It is clear that although profit incentives are thought to provide relief to student

athletes fight for fair compensation, increasing commercial models and mentalities will

only cause more harm and increase the threat to sustaining the economy of college

athletics. The first key to understanding the detrimental effects of commercial influence

in college athletics is to recognize the differences between sharing economies and

commercial economies. The second key is to understand the natural consequences of

profit-driven laws which inhibit the effectiveness in addressing current issues plaguing

the community of college athletics. The infection of commercial models and mentalities
 Shoji 12

leaves issues such as fair compensation at the forefront of reform efforts while real

issues, such as student athlete time demands, are left unattended to. The misguided

tactics to incentivize student athletes proves the hollowness of the NCAAs

understanding as to what threatens the survival of college athletics and what really

motivates student athletes to participate in a sharing economy.

The NCAA must untangle itself from the twisted commercial partnerships for

effective reform efforts to heal college sports. The NCAAs ruling to allow schools to

compensate student athletes through the Cost of Attendance increase is as

inappropriate as a friend paying you fifty dollars to apologize for missing a lunch date.

Whether intentional or due to the blinding effects of the big business of college sports,

the NCAA is not just turning the college athletic experience into a job, it is devaluing the

transformative and educational experience that comes with being a student athlete in

the pursuit of earning a college degree.

 Shoji 13

Bibliography

Boyle, J. (2008). The public domain. New Haven, CT and London, ENG: Yale

University Press.

Branch, T. (2011, October). The shame of college sports. The Atlantic. Retrieved from

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-

sports/308643/

Byers, W., & Hammer, C. H. (1995). Unsportsmanlike conduct: Exploiting college

athletes. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Carchia, B. K. (2013, July 11). Hidden demographics of youth sports. ESPN. Retrieved

from http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/9469252/hidden-demographics-youth-

sports-espn-magazine

Clotfelter, C. T. (2012, July 2). 5 problems to tackle in big-college sports. The Atlantic

Journal Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/news/news/opinion/5-

problems-to-tac

Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: making art and culture thrive in a hybrid economy. New York,

NY: The Penguin Press.

Levine, R. (2011). Free ride. New York, NY: Arborbooks, a division of Random House

Inc.

Oppenheimer, D. (2015, April 20). Why student athletes continue to fail. Time.

Retrieved from http://time.com/3827196/why-student-athletes-fail/