Research Blog #10: Final Abstract and Bibliography

Abstract

The collegiate athletes in the United States college sports system experience a great deal of exploitation from the organization which oversees them, the NCAA. The NCAA does this in a variety of ways the first of which being that the organization restricts what players can earn by only allowing scholarships as possible compensation. Next, the NCAA forces the players to sign over their right of publicity so that the organization may use player likenesses to promote games and sell merchandise and further increase revenue. Lastly, the athletic scholarships are treated much differently than academic ones which lends to the idea that since the athletes generate money they must be controlled. The NCAA unlawfully exploits the athletes which it seeks to protect.

Works Cited

Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem. "College Athletes of the World, Unite." Jacobin. Jacobin, 11 Dec. 2014. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.

Branch, Taylor. "The Shame of College Sports." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 07 Sept. 2011. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.

Cronk, E. “UNLAWFUL ENCROACHMENT: WHY THE NCAA MUST COMPENSATE STUDENT-ATHLETES FOR THE USE OF THEIR NAMES, IMAGES, AND LIKENESSES.” University of La Verne Law Review. 34, 2, 135, June 2013. ISSN: 1944382X.

Hruby, Patrick. "The End of Amateurism Is Not the End of Competitive College Sports." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 28 Aug. 2014. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.

Kahn, Lawrence M. "Markets: Cartel Behavior And Amateurism In College Sports." Journal Of Economic Perspectives 21.1 (2007): 209-226. Business Source Premier. Web. 10 Mar. 2015.

Miller, Anthony. "NCAA Division I Athletics: Amateurism and Exploitation." The Sport Journal. The Sport Journal, 3 Jan. 2012. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.

Mitchell, Horace, and Marc Edelman. "Should College Student-Athletes Be Paid?." U.S. News Digital Weekly 5.52 (2013): 17. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 1 May 2015.

O’Bannon vs. NCAA: The Payment of College Athletes. Prod. Allison Marsh and Jason Rovou. Perf. Larry King, Ed O'Bannon and Michael Hausfeld. Ora TV. Ora TV, 20 Mar. 2014. Web. 12 Apr. 2015.

Sanderson, Allen R., and John J. Siegfried. "The Case For Paying College Athletes." Journal Of Economic Perspectives 29.1 (2015): 115-138. Business Source Premier. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.

Solomon, John. "O'Bannon vs. NCAA: A Cheat Sheet for NCAA's Appeal of Paying Players." CBSSports.com. CBS Sports, 13 Mar. 2015. Web. 01 May 2015.

Research Blog #9: Argument and Counter-Argument

My argument is that players in collegiate sports are being unlawfully exploited by the NCAA and universities. The practices which the NCAA disregards a players right of publicity (the right to their image) by forcing them to sign this right over. Also that they act as a cartel by limiting what players can earn and thus putting a cap on trade. Anthony Miller in his article "NCAA Division I Athletics: Amateurism and Exploitation", gives good examples as to why athletes should not be payed. His first argument is that only football and basketball make money which means that all the other sports the school sponsors, like women's volleyball and even baseball, do not. He asks if it would be fair to pay those in men's basketball more than women playing the same sport even though they practice the same amount. Many of the counter arguments follow the line of reasoning where big football and basketball programs generate money for other sports and many programs which never make money and that paying athletes would deprive these other activities of funding. The argument is always framed as "think of the other sports" and tend to disregard the issues that those in football and basketball must deal with. The article "The Case For Paying College Athletes" by Sanderson and Siegfried completely disregards the point made above. For articles who argue payment for players, they all tend to argue for the individual players and their rights while those opposed to paying these athletes tend to focus on where the money that players don't get is spent on things which support other students.

Literature Review #5

John J. Siegfried 

Allen R. Sanderson                                              

Citation:

Sanderson, Allen R., and John J. Siegfried. "The Case For Paying College Athletes." Journal Of Economic Perspectives 29.1 (2015): 115-138.Business Source Premier. Web. 14 Apr. 2015.

Summary:

This article discusses the how all those involved in college athletics are making huge amounts of money, except the players. It shows how television and licensing deals have been increasing and how the enterprise is becoming more focused on money. It argues that price fixing the players creates an unfair environment where the NCAA can control output. It goes on to provide some ways to compensate players beyond the current tuition, room, board and fees that players are currently given under the NCAA.

About the Authors:

Allen R. Sanderson is a professor at the University of Chicago in the Economics Department and has written many articles concerning economics. John J. Siegfried is a Professor Emeritus at Vanderbilt University who has studied various economic topics over the course of his career. These two men give good insight into the issues which collegiate athletes face with regards to compensation. They also give great insight into how compensation for these players could be carried out in a fair way so that everyone makes money. 

Key Terms:

Grants-in-aid:  education a grant provided by the central government or local education authority to ensure consistent standards in buildings and other facilities

Intercollegiate sports: a sport played at the collegiate level for which eligibility requirements for participation by a student athlete are established by a national association for the promotion or regulation of collegiate athletics

Quotes:

"Television ratings and media dollars have never been higher, owing largely to the popularity of two major revenue sports (football and men’s basketball)" Page 115

"Because few viewers record games and delete advertisements before watching and live games retain the uncertainty of outcome that recorded games lack, the demand for live sports content commands substantial broadcast rights fees, which in turn generate premium advertising rates" Page 119-120

"...participation in and success at intercollegiate athletics might attract larger appropriations from state legislators concerned about their constituents’ perceptions of the public universities in their states, especially considering the fact that the median voter in virtually every state is not a college graduate and might be more interested in the flagship state university’s football team than its library."

Page 121

"...university athletics may increase private donations. More than a dozen studies have investigated the effects of commercialized intercollegiate athletics on private contributions to colleges and universities: some find no effect, while others report a modest positive effect." Page 121

Value:

The article explores some ways which the athletic departments gain money for the college which is helpful when discussing if players should be given more compensation. It shows how colleges receive lots of money from athletic departs through many more ways than I previously considered, such as donations and favorable laws form law makers. It also gives some ideas for how to compensate them such as guaranteed, multi-year scholarships so that players have more security, which some schools have already begun doing.

Research Blog #8: Interview

Interview Between Larry King (Interviewer), Ed O'Bannon and Michael Hausfeld.

"...athletes are amateurs and as amateurs, in a paternalistic way, the university and the athletic departments have to protect these young people from exploitation from others; when in fact the very people that are exploiting them are the athletic departments themselves." -Michael Hausfeld

"the athletes have no voice in the enterprise as a whole as to how long they practice, when they practice, how much the games and practices interfere with their ability to study as well as denying them the compensation for injuries and leaving them as student-athletes without any ability to cover situations where they may suffer from concussions or becoming paraplegic." -Michael Hausfeld

"..it's all about control, it is all about being able to put their [the NCAA's] thumb on your neck and you can only come up for air when we say you can, that's my personal opinion." -Ed O'Bannon

"...it is a paternalistic system that runs almost like a plantation mentality. This is the most massive group of workers who are being exploited in the modern history [...] and they have absolutely no voice in the enterprise which returns for the enterprise billions of dollars a year." -Michael Hausfeld

Citation
O’Bannon vs. NCAA: The Payment of College Athletes. Prod. Allison Marsh and Jason Rovou. Perf. Larry King, Ed O'Bannon and Michael Hausfeld. Ora TV. Ora TV, 20 Mar. 2014. Web. 12 Apr. 2015.

Research Blog #7: Case

The case which I am looking closely at is the case of O'Bannon v. NCAA which was filed in 2009 and temporarily resolved by a district judge in 2014, which the NCAA will likely appeal. In this case, O'Bannon saw that in one of the NCAA basketball video games there was a player who was identical to him in every single way possible (skin tone, height, weight, left handed). He took EA, the creator of the game, and the NCAA, the organization who licensed the game, to court arguing his likeness was being used without compensation. The case later expanded from this to include all uses of a players likeness such as player names used in commercials and jersey sales. Its main idea is that players should get compensation for the NCAA's use of the players likeness upon the players graduation. It states that the NCAA violates his right of publicity.

This case gives credit to the idea I am writing about that the NCAA is illegally using players' likenesses for money and that they deserve to be compensated in some way. The fact that the judge ruled in favor of O'Bannon is a good indicator that what the NCAA is doing in fact illegal.

Usefull Links

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25106422/obannon-vs-ncaa-a-cheat-sheet-for-ncaas-appeal-of-paying-players
This link gives a good overview of the case.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/08/08/ed-obannon-antitrust-lawsuit-vs-ncaa/13801277/
This link gives the ruling of the decision made in 2014.

Research Blog #6: Visual

http://www.statista.com/chart/1014/tv-ad-revenue-during-postseason-sports-in-the-us/

http://www.businessinsider.com/sports-chart-of-the-day-sec-schools-fall-behind-when-it-comes-to-tv-revenue-2012-5

http://academeblog.org/2015/03/28/some-revealing-graphs-about-the-revenues-generated-by-the-ncaa-mens-college-
basketball-tournament/

The graphs above paint a very bleak picture for collegiate athletes as they are generating a ton of money and getting nothing in return. What the graphs show is that the NCAA and its members together generate billions of dollars which students do not get any piece of even though they do most of the work. These graphs demonstrate why collegiate athletes deserve compensation beyond scholarships. 

Literature Review #4

Lawrence Kahn

Citation: 

 Kahn, Lawrence M. "Markets: Cartel Behavior And Amateurism In College Sports." Journal Of Economic Perspectives 21.1 (2007): 209-226. Business Source Premier. Web. 10 Mar. 2015.

Summary:

This article discusses the idea that the NCAA operates like a cartel. According to Kahn, the many restrictions that the NCAA imposes on players and schools act to repress these people and fix costs, as a cartel does. They have enacted restrictions which include player compensation and recruiting expenses and have defeated any potential rival groups. Restricting player compensation is the main way the NCAA can restrict competition and control players. The article continues to say that the NCAA attempts to put limits output by limiting the amount of games that can be televised before the schools sued them to get the rights to televised games.

About the Author:

Lawrence M. Kahn is the Braunstein Family Professor and Professor of Economics. He was Chair of the Labor Economics Department at Cornell during 1998-99 and 2000-2005, is Editor of the Industrial & Labor Relations Review, is on the editorial board of the Journal of Sports Economics, served as Associate Editor of the Industrial & Labor Relations Review and Specialized Co-Editor (for Sports Economics) of Economic Inquiry and was on the Board of Editors of Industrial Relations. As an economics professor, he can give unique insight into the practices of the NCAA and help determine if the practices they employ are fair from an economic standpoint. 

Key Terms:

Cartel: an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition.

Regulation: a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority.

Quotes:

"According to proponents of the cartel theory of the NCAA, the organization has enforced collusive restrictions on payments for factors of production, including player compensation, recruiting expenses, and assistant coaches’ salaries; it has restricted output; and it has defeated potential rival groups." Page 211

"Today, restrictions on payments to players are probably the most important way in which the NCAA acts to restrict competition. But historically, the NCAA has sought other ways to reduce input payments and to restrict output." Page 211

"...from a redistributionist point of view, for at least some college athletes who make it to the National Football League (NFL) or NBA and likely generate a disproportionate share of the revenues in college sports, lifetime permanent income may be high. Thus, the redistribution caused by monopsony over these athletes may in fact be progressive. On the other hand, college athletes rarely make it to the professional ranks: only 1.3 percent of NCAA football players and 1.7 percent of NCAA basketball players make it to the pros..."

Value:

This article is valuable because it gives economic insight into the issues which players face when playing for the NCAA. It describes the many ways which players are exploited and controlled by the NCAA be it through controlling wages or using sanctions and penalties to restrict the players from using their likeness to create revenue. This article gives me an economic prospective where before only legal perspectives were available.

Research Blog #5: Bibliography

Branch, Taylor. "The Shame of College Sports." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 07 Sept. 2011. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.

Cronk, E. “UNLAWFUL ENCROACHMENT: WHY THE NCAA MUST COMPENSATE STUDENT-ATHLETES FOR THE USE OF THEIR NAMES, IMAGES, AND LIKENESSES.” University of La Verne Law Review. 34, 2, 135, June 2013. ISSN: 1944382X.

Hruby, Patrick. "The End of Amateurism Is Not the End of Competitive College Sports." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 28 Aug. 2014. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.

Kahn, Lawrence M. "Markets: Cartel Behavior And Amateurism In College Sports." Journal Of Economic Perspectives 21.1 (2007): 209-226. Business Source Premier. Web. 10 Mar. 2015.

Miller, Anthony. "NCAA Division I Athletics: Amateurism and Exploitation." The Sport Journal. The Sport Journal, 3 Jan. 2012. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.

Murphy, Steve, and Jonathan Pace. "A Plan For Compensating Student-Athletes." Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal 1 (1994): 167. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Feb. 2015.

Research Blog #4: Research Proposal

Brian McAlister
Research in Disciplines: College!
Professor Goeller
March 3, 2015
Working Title: The Exploitation of the Collegiate Athlete

Topic
This paper will explore the legality of the NCAA and the various ways it and universities use the terms “student-athlete” and “amateur” to exploit athletes for financial gain. The paper will attempt to link the NCAA and universities to the idea that college sports has become a money making business and that the athletes rights are being encroached upon for profit. It will focus on Division 1 sports, in particular large football and basketball programs as they generate the most money.

Research Question
Has collegiate athletics become a for profit enterprise which unlawfully exploits collegiate athletes for economic gains?

Theoretical Frame
        The legality of the NCAA has been questioned many times and the practices that it uses to keep players from being compensated can be considered illegal. According to “UNLAWFUL ENCROACHMENT: WHY THE NCAA MUST COMPENSATE STUDENT-ATHLETES FOR THE USE OF THEIR NAMES, IMAGES, AND LIKENESSES” by Erin Cronk, the right of publicity, which states the right of privacy includes “appropriation, for the defendant's advantage, of the plaintiffs name or likeness”, is being broken by the NCAA when they appropriate names and likeness for profit. It is argued that the NCAA forces the athlete to sign over this right as they must if they want to play, which is exploitation. The NCAA principle of amateurism is used keep colligate athletes from profiting off of their image and likeness in order to preserve some kind of fairness. There are many instances where the athletes’ likenesses and names are appropriated for huge profits such as selling jerseys with the numbers of star players. This principle raises a question, is this provision still fair in a world where so many profit from the hard work of unpaid collegiate athletes? College athletics makes so much money and it seems rather unfair that collegiate athletes do not get fair compensation for the risk and effort they put in.
        Another issue is that the NCAA fits the description of a cartel, which is illegal. According to Lawrence Kahn in his work “Markets: Cartel Behavior And Amateurism In College Sports”, the NCAA “…has enforced collusive restrictions on payments for factors of production, including player compensation, recruiting expenses, and assistant coaches’ salaries; it has restricted output; and it has defeated potential rival groups” and he states that “…restrictions on payments to players are probably the most important way in which the NCAA acts to restrict competition.” When the NCAA is allowed to operate in this manner, students are being exploited as top athletes are made to accept compensation in the form of scholarships which is well below the amount of money they generate for the NCAA and schools. By controlling prices and putting harsh restrictions and penalties in place for violating for breaking these rules, the NCAA generates massive profits which the athletes never see. Athletes get exploited when there is a restriction on the amount of compensation an athlete can receive.

Case
O’Bannon v. NCAA and EA Sports is a case which deals with the appropriation of collegiate athletes’ likenesses in both video games and the lack of licensing for media broadcasts. This is important because the NCAA and outside companies are profiting off the likeness of collegiate athletes giving absolutely no compensation to players. Collegiate athletes in this case are being exploited and there is nothing they can do as these athletes are forced to sign over their likeness. This, according to Erin Cronk, is a violation of the right of publicity.
        There are a few lawsuits that have come about due to the practices the NCAA uses to control collegiate sports that are consistent with that of a cartel. The first is a lawsuit fairly recently in March of 2014 which seeks to change the rule that universities cannot negotiate or give some form of compensation players and that price-fixation is a restraint of trade. Another case is NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma which sought to take control of television rights from the NCAA and give them to universities. This case was successful in taking power away from the NCAA and also stopped revenue sharing from these broadcasts (Branch). The issue that was challenged in this case, NCAA control of televised games, has many similarities to other issues that students currently face. The ruling found that restricting television appearances of schools was a restraint of trade and thus universities were given control. The universities faced restraint of trade from the price fixing which the defendants of the law suit mentioned in the previous case argue they are facing as well.

Literature Review #3

Citation:

Miller, Anthony. "NCAA Division I Athletics: Amateurism and Exploitation." The Sport Journal. The Sport Journal, 3 Jan. 2012. Web. 09 Mar. 2015.

Summary:

This article discusses how the NCAA might be exploiting the athletes, in particular those in division one athletics. It describes what amateurism is and how in modern sports it is no longer ethical to not compensate the players. The article describes the NCAA as a cartel as it does things such as regulate the means of acquiring athletes and puts a fixed value on them. It describes how a player who can not afford college becomes a victim of exploitation as they must play to stay in school. The article shows how the NCAA and universities exploit athletes for gain. 

About the author:

Anthony Miller is a doctoral candidate at the United States Sports Academy as of 2011. Going to a university which specializes in sports gives the author good insight into the NCAA and any exploitation that may be going on.

Key Terms:

Athletic Scholarship: An athletic scholarship is a form of scholarship to attend a college or university or a private high school awarded to an individual based predominantly on his or her ability to play in a sport.

Exploitation: the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.

Quotes:

"The best schools are not available to everyone. Some athletes are only recruited by schools with poor academic records. Although players are not forced to attend one of those schools, some are financially unable to attend college without the help of an athletic scholarship. A student-athlete under such circumstances would be considered a victim of exploitation."

"Researchers and economists who have studied intercollegiate athletics have described today’s NCAA as a cartel. A cartel is defined as a joint group of members who create policies in order to promote the mutual interests of the members."

"The current NCAA Division I intercollegiate sports program has evolved into a multi-billion dollar industry where many of the schools’ annual revenues reach above $260 million."

"But a teenager with no prior experience who receives the equivalent of $120,000 a year is uncommon in other professions. When asked about fair compensation for college athletes, Butler University men's Basketball player Matt Howard replied, 'Forty thousand dollars plus a year to play, that's pretty good salary for an 18-year old who has no college education.'"

Value:

There is a lot of value in this article as it describes different ways that athletes can be exploited. It also gives the reasons for which the NCAA can be considered a cartel which backs the idea that the athletes are treated unfairly. It also does a good job giving the counter-argument that the money generated from high profit sports like basketball and football are used to support sports which make very little money such as lacrosse and swimming. It also points out that athletes receive a lot of different services which value over $100,000.  

Literature Review #2

Taylor Branch

Citation:

Branch, Taylor. "The Shame of College Sports." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 07 Sept. 2011. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.

    

Summary:

The article details  the many ways through which the NCAA uses the "student-athlete" label to protect itself, deny payment to athletes and, above all else, make lots of money. The article shows how they NCAA treats athletes differently, such as Cam Newton being reinstated to Auburn even though he had broken payment rules. It also shows how the NCAA denies players with injuries workers compensation saying they are not paid and therefore are not eligible. The article shows how the NCAA does what ever is best to make money at the expense of the "student-athletes" that it claims to protect.

About the author:

Branch is a well known historian and writer who has written many books about presidents and historical figures such as Martin Luther King, Jr. He is an investigative writer who has written about civil rights and can provide insight into the argument and help decide the fairness of the way the NCAA treats student-athletes.

Key Terms:

NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma: A decision that stripped the NCAA of its control over televised games and the revenue they generate, giving the power to the individual schools. This stopped revenue sharing as well.

NCAA v. Tarkanian:  A decision which exempted the NCAA from any due-process obligations because it was not a government organization.

Quotes:

"Last year, CBS Sports and Turner Broadcasting paid $771 million to the NCAA for television rights to the 2011 men’s basketball tournament alone. That’s three-quarters of a billion dollars built on the backs of amateurs—on unpaid labor. The whole edifice depends on the players’ willingness to perform what is effectively volunteer work." Page 4

"Cognizant of its precarious financial base, the NCAA has in recent years begun to pursue new sources of revenue. Taking its cue from member schools such as Ohio State (which in 2009 bundled all its promotional rights—souvenirs, stadium ads, shoe deals—and outsourced them to the international sports marketer IMG College for a guaranteed $11 million a year), the NCAA began to exploit its vault of college sports on film. For $29.99 apiece, NCAA On Demand offers DVDs of more than 200 memorable contests in men’s ice hockey alone. Video-game technology also allows nostalgic fans to relive and even participate in classic moments of NCAA Basketball. NCAA Football, licensed by the NCAA through IMG College to Electronic Arts, one of the world’s largest video-game manufacturers, reportedly sold 2.5 million copies in 2008." Page 4

"The game, perhaps the most exciting of the season, was unbearably tense, with Auburn coming from way behind to win 28–27, all but assuring that it would go on to play for the national championship. Days later, Auburn suspended Newton after the NCAA found that a rules violation had occurred: his father was alleged to have marketed his son in a pay-for-play scheme; a day after that, the NCAA reinstated Newton’s eligibility because investigators had not found evidence that Newton or Auburn officials had known of his father’s actions. This left Newton conveniently eligible for the Southeastern Conference championship game and for the postseason BCS championship bowl. For the NCAA, prudence meant honoring public demand.

'Our championships,” NCAA President Mark Emmert has declared, “are one of the primary tools we have to enhance the student-athlete experience.'" Page 4

Value:

This article is incredibly valuable as it gives in depth descriptions of many of the scandals that have occurred in college sports and shows how the NCAA handled them. It gives many examples of the NCAA making rulings in order to keep profits or avoid paying for various expenses. It also reveals that Universities as well as the NCAA have moved to a money making approach and that the idea of calling the athletes "student-athletes" only serves to keep them unpaid and make more money. Universities, the NCAA, and various corporations have made lots of money off of unpaid labor.  

Literature Review #1

Erin Cronk

Citation:

CRONK, E. UNLAWFUL ENCROACHMENT: WHY THE NCAA MUST COMPENSATE STUDENT-ATHLETES FOR THE USE OF THEIR NAMES, IMAGES, AND LIKENESSES. University of La Verne Law Review. 34, 2, 135, June 2013. ISSN: 1944382X.

Summary:

This article covers the various ways through which the NCAA exploits athletes' likeness in order to turn a larger profit. This exploitation ranges from the sale of certain jersey numbers, such as A.J. McCarron's #10 jersey being displayed and sold for profit, to schools signing huge television deals for millions of dollars and using the players on the team as free advertising. The article also covers how the students right of publicity is being violated by the practices that universities and the NCAA use.

About the author:

Erin Cronk is a Junior Assistant at CGC Law and graduated from the University of La Verne in 2013. As a law graduate, she has good insight in the legality of the practices the NCAA uses when they use player likeness for promotions and profit.

Key Terms:

NCAA principle of amateurism: student-athletes shall be amateurs in an intercollegiate sport, and their participation should be motivated primarily by education and by the physical, mental and social benefits to be derived. Student participation in intercollegiate athletics is an avocation, and student-athletes should be protected from exploitation by professional commercial enterprises. 

Student-athlete: is a participant in an organized competitive sport sponsored by the educational institution in which he or she is enrolled. 

Quotes:

"The NCAA appropriates the student-athletes' identities in the merchandise market by selling jerseys with numbers that are affixed to the identity of the student athlete who wears that number. While the jerseys do not have the student-athletes' names sewn on to the back of them, the players' likenesses are still being appropriated." Page 145

"Using economic principles, Professor Roger Noll of Stanford, quantified the value of the use of student-athletes' identities in television broadcasts. His research found SEC football players would be entitled to $61.5 million dollars and PAC-10 basketball players would be entitled to $30.4 million dollars. Noll's calculations were 'based on a 50-50 split for telecasts and a one-third split for video games, based on recognized economic principles, examples from professional sports, and examples from music artists' licensing.'" Page 147

 "In addition to high-profile television deals, the NCAA uses the names, images, and likenesses of current student-athletes in many other products, including DVDs, video games, and online streaming content. The NCAA licenses DVDs that document anything from a team's football season, era, or playoff series and sell for approximately $29.99. The NCAA website also provides a variety of downloadable videos featuring the accolades of student-athletes including highlights and championship celebrations." Page 148

Value:

This document proved to be incredibly valuable as it has great explanations as to how athletes' likenesses are being exploited through various mediums be it film, television or video game. The exploitation of athletes is a major focus of the paper and this provides great insight into just what the NCAA and universities use player likeness for. 

Research Blog #3: How might privatization connect to your topic?

The issue of student-athletes not being paid rises from the idea that Universities are privatizing and need a way to make more money. Student-athletes are used as a way to attract new students and sponsors to the school as a good sports team is a big draw. The universities can use the athletes likeness and name to promote games and draw more viewers, which in turn leads to larger television deals. When the universities shift "...from civic concern to the pursuit of self-interest..." the student-athletes suffer (Starr).

Starr, Paul. "The Meaning of Privatization." Yale Law and Policy Review 6 (1988): 6-41.  Print and web.  5 Jan. 2014.  Available online at http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/articles/articles80-89/Starr-MeaningPrivatization-88.htm

Research Blog #2: Scouting the Territory

I would like the paper to focus more on the NCAA putting lots of restrictions on players to keep them in a "amateur" status. This status seems to give these students little representation when it comes to policy change. "Amateurism" as a keyword brings up many articles which talk about how the amateur label is used to keep students from protecting themselves with agents and unions.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/08/the-end-of-amateurism-not-the-end-of-college-sports/379200/

http://thesportjournal.org/article/ncaa-division-i-athletics-amateurism-and-exploitation/

Research Blog #1: Topic Idea

For my research paper, I would like to explore how the NCAA and Universities treat student athletes unfairly and use them to make money without proper compensation. Student athletes face many restrictions in order to be allowed to play in college that seem unfair for the amount of time and effort they must dedicate to the sport they play. I will explore how the NCAA makes lots of money off of the athletes and how these athletes get no financial return for all the effort they must put in. The universities also use these players for advertisement as having a good sports team often increases enrollment and brings in corporate sponsorship. Student athletes deserve to be compensated more than they currently are because of the amount of revenue and free advertisement that they currently bring to schools. This paper will focus on Division 1 in particular.