Testing the Hypothesis, Part 1 (ENT3003 Assignment 7A)

Opportunity: Help bridge the gap between the NCAA and student-athletes (and everyone else involved), in regards to the "fair pay for play" debate.

Hypothesis: The NCAA is unable and/or unwilling to allow student-athletes to be properly compensated for playing for its educational institutions because of the student-athletes potentially being negatively viewed as employees rather than students first and foremost.

• The Who: The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)
• The What: They are unwilling to allow student-athletes to be compensated for playing.
• The Why: Student-athletes will be viewed more as employees than students.

Interview 1:

1. Is the NCAA solely responsible for this dilemma and should they be tasked to fix it?
• Everyone involved is responsible and have to find common ground.
2. Do all institutions agree with this? Who else does this affect?
• No, there are bills coming out in specific states to allow their institutions to pay student-athletes. As well as the student-athletes, the NCAA and its institutions that are affected, the fans of collegiate sports are impacted as well.
3. Why is it important for student-athletes to be viewed as such? What other reasons are there to not allow student-athletes to be paid?
• Any type of student should not feel like they are on a higher (or even the same) level as their instructors financially; though they should not be ignored for their influence to the profit of the school's athletic departments either. Other reasons may be to keep as much money as they can from the likeness of these student-athletes.

Interview 2:

1. Is the NCAA solely responsible for this dilemma and should they be tasked to fix it?
• The media is responsible for the dilemma. In reality, there isn't a problem with the current system.
2. Do all institutions agree with this? Who else does this affect?
• There are already bills in process for specific states to pressure the NCAA into changing their pay structure. This affects the NCAA the most, making it harder for them to enforce their rules.
3. Why is it important for student-athletes to be viewed as such? What other reasons are there to not allow student-athletes to be paid?
• The purpose of them being students and learning from these professors is to someday get to that level and hopefully even surpass them, not feel like they're already there. Obviously, there is plenty of money involved in sports in general, the more the NCAA can keep to themselves the better for them.

Interview 3:

1. Is the NCAA solely responsible for this dilemma and should they be tasked to fix it?
• They are students who get full scholarships to live a better and easier college life than most. If there is a problem to fix, then it should be to not pamper them as much.
2. Do all institutions agree with this? Who else does this affect?
• Of course not, most institutions already pay these kids under the table to come play for them anyway. It affects the student-athletes because now they feel entitled to want even more.
3. Why is it important for student-athletes to be viewed as such? What other reasons are there to not allow student-athletes to be paid?
• Students should be focused on getting an education above anything else, otherwise there's no point to go to an educational institution, they can go overseas or semi-pro or whatever instead. There's plenty of money in collegiate sports, the NCAA wants as little hands on that pot as possible.

Interview 4:

1. Is the NCAA solely responsible for this dilemma and should they be tasked to fix it?
• Yes, the NCAA are the lawmakers of their association and everyone under them has to abide by their rules. They should fix it and pay their players already.
2. Do all institutions agree with this? Who else does this affect?
• No, there are some states trying to pass bills and allow their student-athletes to be compensated. This affects fans of states who wouldn't be able to compete because they start paying players for as long as the NCAA holds firm on not paying them.
3. Why is it important for student-athletes to be viewed as such? What other reasons are there to not allow student-athletes to be paid?
• That's just an excuse not to pay them for what they bring to the school as athletes. The NCAA is being greedy with the money that these kids are generating for them.

Interview 5:

1. Is the NCAA solely responsible for this dilemma and should they be tasked to fix it?
• No, the institutions have enough power to force the NCAA to make some changes. It should not pay the student-athletes directly, but still let them be able to compensate from their likeness.
2. Do all institutions agree with this? Who else does this affect?
• Many seem like they don't, but only now are they stepping up and challenging the NCAA about it. This affects the fans who put lots of their money into memorabilia of their favorite player or tickets to watch said player only for a season or two. If there was a better structure in place that benefits the players more, the student-athletes would be more willing to stay all 4 years, benefitting the fans, the NCAA and its institutions even more over a longer period.
3. Why is it important for student-athletes to be viewed as such? What other reasons are there to not allow student-athletes to be paid?
• They should be viewed as students first, that's true, but it is still a business at the end of the day; so if they're generating that much money for their institution, they should be able to also be compensated in some way. Again, the NCAA is a business, so they're not going to simply hand out money to the athletes just because it is the right thing to do; there has to be pushback on the rules that are already in place and the NCAA has to have another business plan in place before they decide to revise them.

Summary: Given my interviews, I learned that even though most people have their own opinions on the matter, they still usually come to a similar conclusion. No matter what side they're on, most of the people who I interviewed understand that an impasse in changing the current structure will not be beneficial to anyone sooner or later. Therefore, it is the general consensus that revising the rules to better benefit everyone should be in the best interest of everyone involved.