The value of March Madness television and multimedia broadcast rights covering the years 2025-2032 is $8.8 billion.
Despite this tournament’s lucrative nature, with millionaire coaches yelling from the sidelines and the players risking their health—we are still in a pandemic after all—players will not profit from this deal.
Despite Michigan State University announcing that their basketball team would in the future be known as the “Michigan State Spartans Presented by Rocket Mortgage,” players will not get a cut from this profitable advertising.
Despite 60 percent of the public believing that these athletes should profit from endorsement money generated from their images and likenesses, the NCAA has not budged.
Help may be on the way to right this wrong. On March 31, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case challenging the NCAA.
The case got to the Supreme Court because, as expected, the NCAA appealed a ruling by a federal appeals court which held that the NCAA could not limit benefits tied to education for Division I football and basketball players. This ruling allowed payments for things like musical instruments, scientific equipment, postgraduate scholarships, tutoring, study abroad, academic awards, and internships.
In the hearing, Justices across the ideological spectrum questioned the NCAA’s position. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., drawing on briefs supporting the players, painted a bleak picture of athletes’ lives and futures.
“They face training requirements that leave little time or energy for study, constant pressure to put sports above study, pressure to drop out of hard majors and hard classes, really shockingly low graduation rates,” he said. “Only a tiny percentage ever go on to make any money in professional sports.”
“So the argument is they are recruited, they’re used up, and then they’re cast aside without even a college degree, “Justice Alito said. “How can this be defended in the name of amateurism?”
Justice Kavanaugh argued that antitrust laws should not be a cover for the exploitation of college athletes. He said, “To pay no salaries to the workers who are making the schools billions of dollars on the theory that consumers want the schools to pay their workers nothing, seems “entirely circular and even somewhat disturbing.”
Even Justice Clarence Thomas, who seldom speaks at these hearings, weighed in, noting that participants in college sports other than athletes get paid, saying, “It strikes me as odd that the coaches’ salaries have ballooned and they’re in the amateur ranks, as are the players.”
The Biden administration filed a brief supporting the athletes in this case.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule against the NCAA and permit uncapping of certain education-related benefits for college athletes; however, this is just a tiny step in the right direction.
The goal should be for Division I college basketball, football, and baseball players to receive much greater shares of the revenue they generate. And that is coming.
California passed a bill to allow college athletes to hire agents and make money from endorsements. Starting in 2023, this practice will threaten college sports’ business model, which has a “heads we win and tails you lose” approach to college athletes. A law in Florida, scheduled to take effect this summer, will also allow College athletes to profit off their fame.
Last December, Senators Cory Booker and Richard Blumenthal introduced the College Athletics Bill of Rights, the most comprehensive yet. Principally, the Booker-Blumenthal bill would make significant changes to the distribution of money in college sports.
College athletes would get a cut of the profit from their revenue-generating sport after their scholarship is deducted. In addition to sharing profits from the revenue they generate, athletes will be allowed to sign brand deals and participate in endorsements.
And there are other important provisions in the bill:
• College athletes would receive health care coverage up to five years following their eligibility. When players are injured, they receive medical care as long as they are in school and are still eligible. However, they are cut off when their eligibility is ended, whether they need more medical attention or not.
• College athletes would have more autonomy over their decisions to stay at a university, transfer, or go pro. As things stand now, the NCAA has severe restrictions over these decisions.
• Schools would be required to provide scholarships to college athletes however long it takes them to graduate.
A much-needed new day for college sports might be on the horizon.
