Clarifying Amateurism: A Logical Approach to Resolving the Exploitation of College Athletes Dilemma

Abstract

In this paper we investigate the logical consequences of the common understanding of amateurism in the context of big-time US college athletics, and in so doing, illustrate a method based on linguistic analysis and logic. The initial thrust of the paper centres on the term ‘amateur’ as presupposed by the late Professor Brand in his attempt to justify the ‘business’ of NCAA-sponsored Division I sports by decoupling the ‘participants from the enterprise’. Next, we examine a more rigorous definition of the term ‘amateur’ in order to show more clearly the difficulties posed by the current situation in college athletics. Additionally, our use of linguistic analysis exposes a flaw in the NCAA's recent move to amend by-law 12.02 in an attempt to avoid the charge of exploitation. Lastly, we put forth a new proposal for better dealing with the central issues swirling around the NCAA as it strives to formulate sound policy at this ‘tectonic’ juncture of players, fans, college programmes and academic integrity.

Dans cet article, nous étudions les conséquences logiques de la compréhension commune de l'amateurisme dans le contexte du sport universitaire de haut-niveau, et, ce faisant, nous illustrons une méthode basée sur l'analyse linguistique et la logique. La poussée initiale de cet article se concentre sur le terme «amateur» comme le présuppose le regretté professeur Brand dans sa tentative de justifier les «affaires» de la Division I de la NCAA en découplant de manière cavalière les «participants de l'entreprise. » Ensuite, nous examinons une définition plus rigoureuse du terme «amateur» afin de montrer plus clairement les difficultés posées par la situation actuelle dans le sport universitaire. En outre, notre utilisation de l'analyse linguistique expose une faille dans la récente décision du NCAA d’amender le règlement 12.02 dans une tentative d'éviter l'accusation d'exploitation. Enfin, nous avons mis en avant une nouvelle proposition pour mieux gérer les questions centrales qui tourbillonnent autour de la NCAA alors qu'elle s'efforce de formuler une politique rationnelle à cette « tectonique » de joueurs, fans, programmes universitaire et d'intégrité académique.

In unserem Aufsatz untersuchen wir die Konsequenzen des vorherrschenden Verständnisses von „Amateursport“ mit Blick auf den US-amerikanischen College-Sport. Dabei wenden wir eine aus der Linguistik und Logik stammende Methode an.

Im Zentrum der Untersuchung steht der Begriff des „Amateurs“, so wie ihn Prof. Brand in seinen späteren Arbeiten über den geschäftsmäßigen NCAA-geförderten Sport („Division-1“) geprägt hat. Ihm ging es darum, die „Teilnehmer“ vom „Unternehmertum“ abzugrenzen. Um die aktuellen Probleme des College-Sports zu analysieren, schlagen wir zunächst eine enger gefasste Definition des Begriffs „Amateur“ vor. Darüber hinaus legen wir mit Hilfe der linguistischen Methode eine Schwachstelle der NCAA-Reform des Statuts 12.02 offen. Mit der Reform sollte dem Vorwurf der Ausbeutung begegnet werden. Daran anknüpfend entwickeln wir schließlich einen Verfahrensvorschlag, mit dem eine ausgewogenere Politik der NCAA an der „tektonischen“ Verbindungsstelle von Spielern, Fans, College-Programmen und universitärer Integrität zu gewährleistet werden soll.

En este trabajo analizamos las consecuencias lógicas de la interpretación habitual del amateurismo en el contexto del deporte universitario de relevancia, y con esto, ilustramos un método basado en el análisis lingüístico y lógico. La motivación inicial de este artículo se centra en el término “amateurismo” tal y como lo presupone el difunto profesor Brand en su intento de justificar el “negocio” del deporte patrocinado de la Primera División de la NCAA al disociar desdeñosamente a “los participantes de la actividad”. A continuación, examinamos una definición más rigurosa del término “amateur” con el fin de mostrar con más claridad las dificultades presentadas por la actual situación del deporte universitario. Además, nuestro análisis lingüístico muestra un fallo en el actual intento de la NCAA de enmendar el estatuto [Bylaw] 12.02 en un intento de evitar la acusación de explotación. Al final, presentamos una nueva propuesta para lidiar mejor con las cuestiones principales que giran alrededor de la NCAA en su esfuerzo por formular una buena política en esta unión “tectónica” de jugadores, seguidores, programas universitarios, e integridad académica.

在本文, 我們所要探究的是對業餘運動精神在美國大學運動環境所塑造出共同的理解邏輯。為此, 我們採用一種基於語言分析及邏輯方法。本文一開始聚焦在Professor Brand 對 “amateur” 這一名詞的辯護來證成美國大學校際運動聯盟NCAA Division I 所受到贊助的商業活動, 主要在於區分 “參與者與企業” 這兩種不同的群體。其次, 我們對 “amateur” 這一個名詞採取了一個更嚴格之定義探索, 以便來顯示更多現行美國大學運動的困難情形。此外, 我們所使用的語言分析也顯示出 NCAA 最近所修正的法規附則 12.02 所產生的困難, 主要在於避免受到剝削的指責。最後, 我們提出一個新的解決方案來處理 NCAA 所面臨的問題, 藉以來形成一個較佳的政策架構來解決運動員、粉絲、大學運動賽程與學術純潔性的相關危機問題

Keywords:

• amateurism
• distribution fairness
• exploitation
• linguistic analysis
• logical proof
• NCAA

Notes

During the 1875–6 season Harvard-Yale football game receipts totalled $705.51 and $859.71 respectively (utilising the mean, $782.61, equates to $16,651.28 in the year 2012). By 1909–10 Harvard-Yale football gate receipts skyrocketed to $78,583.72 and $72,960.99, respectively (Westby and Sack 1976, 630). In this case, the mean, $75,772.35, equates to a current value of $1,848,106.10. As for the modern-day NCAA, it is currently engaged in a 14-year, $10.8 billion agreement with Turner Broadcasting and CBS Sports for the television rights to the Division I Men's Basketball Championship. In December of 2011, the NCAA and ESPN, Inc. announced a $500 million multi-year agreement to 2023–4 for worldwide multimedia rights to 24 NCAA championships and exclusive multimedia rights outside the United States, its territories and Bermuda for the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship. The NCAA maintains corporate sponsorship agreements with AT&T, Capital One, Coca-Cola, Buick, Enterprise, Infiniti, LG, Lowe's, Northwestern Mutual, Reese's, Unilever, UPS and Wheat Thins; benefits from licensee agreements with 37 companies; and, owns the rights to more than 75 trademarks (NCAA Corporate Relationships 2012).

Aside from football gate receipts, additional elements of economic interest were present in college sports' infancy. Cash prizes began in the 1850s and by the 1860s ‘Harvard was competing for purses as high as $500’ (Smith 1985, 224). As early as the 1880s ‘most colleges had accepted the idea of charging spectators’ (ibid.); in 1903 Harvard built a 40,000 seat stadium. In 1900, Penn State College ‘legalized the professionalizing of recruitment and payment of athletes … by sanctioning athletic scholarships to include room, board, and tuition’ (ibid., 225).

As far back as the 1870s the faculty at Harvard sought to ban gate receipts since charging a fee for a football game ‘gave an “undesirable professional tone” to college athletics’ (Smith 1985, 224). For modern-day faculty disgust with the collegiate sport business model, see Gerdy (2006, 10), wherein he states: ‘It is time to acknowledge that American education's experiment with elite athletics has failed. Its negative impact on our academic values, educational institutions, and cultural priorities can no longer be ignored or rationalized away.’ See also Funk 1991 and Sack and Staurowsky 1998.

‘The exaltation of the amateur and the debasement of the professional was a nineteenth-century function of British social class elitism. The intent of amateurism as devised by the English social elite was to exclude from sport those of the lower classes. The British influence … on American college sport was profound’ (Smith 1985, 222; Smith 1993, 431, 432).

By ‘secure’ we are not suggesting that people aren't aware that certain perks are received by amateurs. The issue is, of course, how to draw the line between those that undercut the spirit of the ideal, and those that do not. Amateurism is by no means unique in having such definitional problems (see Smith 1985, 222; Smith 1993, 433; and Fitt 2009, 583–4). As for the question of whether sport at any level can be free of economic development, the answer must be yes; although chances that it would be free of economic involvement at the higher levels are slight.

Wertheimer (1996, 77–95) analysed the ordinary notion of exploitation to be ‘that one party exploits another when it gets unfair or undeserved benefits from its transactions or relationships with others’. While Wertheimer stated only a sufficient condition for exploitation, namely that ‘x exploits y if x (unfairly or undeservedly) gains from the transaction’, his analysis certainly provided a new and interesting perspective on the matter. We posit that a definitional examination of the words ‘amateur’ and ‘exploitation’ taken together is a necessary requirement for any logically sound conclusion to be reached if one is to determine, objectively, whether big-time college athletes are, indeed, amateurs, and whether such athletes are, in fact, exploited.

It is recognised that use of the term ‘unfairly’ at this point is insufficient to adequately deal with the many borderline cases that can be raised; however, it does serve to show the exact locus of the need for further analysis. For example, we are asked to consider the ‘diner case’. Suppose a small town diner does exceedingly well on game night because the high-school football team is undefeated. Does this mean the diner is exploiting the players in some way? Only a cynic would consider this to be a case of exploitation; nevertheless, it is an interesting case because it suggests a concept that may be useful in more complicated cases, namely, the notion of ‘collateral benefit’ (as a positive antonym of the common notion of collateral damage).

Launched in 2009 as a joint initiative between the NCAA and the NBA, the mission of iHoops.com is ‘to establish a structure and develop programmes to rove the quality of youth basketball in America in order to enhance the thletic, educational, and social experience of the participants’ (iHoops.com, n.d.). ESPNRecruitingNation.com (n.d.) provides exclusive coverage of high-school football records, power rankings and ‘blue chip’ recruits.

The impetus for changes to by-law 12.02 may be, in part, driven by the fact that the NCAA is involved in on-going litigation regarding the use of athlete's name and likeness (In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation, Case 4:09-cv-01967-CW (N.D. Cal. 10 March 2010)).

According to the NCAA, proposal No. 2010–26 ‘was developed in the spirit of balancing the importance of commercial sponsors in maintaining a comprehensive athletics program and the importance of protecting student-athletes from being exploited by commercial entities’. Allegedly, ‘this proposal provides an institution, conference or the NCAA [with] flexibility in developing relationships with commercial entities that benefit athletics programs, while maintaining the principle prohibiting commercial exploitation of student-athletes’ (2011 Division I Official Notice 2010, 55).

Form 08–3a – ‘The Student-Athlete Statement’, specifically Part III, ‘Affirmation of Status as an Amateur’ and Part IV, ‘Promotion of NCAA Championships, Events, Activities or Programs’.

Ramogi Huma, president of the National College Players Association (available online at http://www.ncpanow.org/, accessed 15 June 2010).

The NCAA Division I membership recently approved the option of offering multi-year scholarships (Hosick 2012).

Gerberding (1995, 5) stated: ‘I believe that in the not-distant future some bright lawyer and aggrieved player will figure out how to raise in a court of law the question whether this ‘principle’ also protects the student-athlete from exploitation by universities and the NCAA’. See also Virginia Fitt (2009, 585, 587–9), wherein she notes that a new definition of amateurism or a ‘deregulation of amateurism may actually strengthen the NCAA's antitrust and employment law position without impacting its tax status’.

‘The legal background of the amateurism debate suggests that the law has evolved with a changing cultural definition of amateurism, but the NCAA lags behind in recognizing athletes as they are. It is thus time for an amateurism that better serves the modern goals and realities of amateur sport. … The amateur athlete need not be wholly self-sacrificing in order to play for love of the game and create value for the public’ (Fitt 2009, 292–3).