With the Olympics concluding its first week, we’ve seen several American college students have success on the international stage. Some student-athletes have medaled, and with those medals come financial windfalls additional to the accompanying pride and prestige.
As has been discussed ad nauseam in recent months, payment of college athletes for efforts on behalf of their schools has become a divisive issue in athletic departments nationwide. For many, the payouts given at the Olympics represent only a fraction of what student-athletes are entitled to, while others view Olympic prize money as a unique, stand-alone situation that should have no bearing on larger NCAA discussions.
The NCAA stipulations that allows for student-athletes to keep their prizes from the Olympics, including gifts that can often double the allowances for bowl game packages, is a result of the NCAA trying to allow for greater flexibility in accepting training stipends from national organizations like USA Wrestling or the USOC. Making these allowances keeps students in school, whereas they would perhaps otherwise drop out to turn professional or pursue once-in-a-lifetime opportunities to be Olympic athletes. By permitting them to receive certain stipends to cover exorbitant and time-consuming training regimens, the NCAA hopes to allow student-athletes the funds needed to remain enrolled.
It is a good thing too that the NCAA allows this flexibility, as there are opportunities at substantial money in Olympic competition. For example, as Steve Berkowitz has been reporting for USA Today, American student-athletes have earned nearly $1 million, with over half the competition still remaining. Individuals like wrestler Kyle Snyder can make a cool $250,000 with a gold medal, a very real possibility considering Snyder’s reign of international dominance.
That these student-athletes are able to receive this payment but still maintain their “amateur” status calls into question the consistency with which the NCAA is legislating college athletics. Don’t get me wrong, these Olympians should be allowed to keep whatever they earn in Rio. What is curious, though, is that training and success in Rio versus the regular college season is viewed as different and treated as such.
Perhaps one argument the NCAA could make for the seeming double standard is the source of the funds. While asking schools to pay their athletes out of their own coffers would fundamentally change the finances for hundreds of institutions, student-athletes receiving Olympic prizes or training stipends are paid-for by outside, non-academic entities.
Curiously, when the opportunity to pay students from outside sources has arisen, the NCAA unequivocally forbids them. Boosters, endorsements, or autograph/merchandise sales, all of which would pay students independent of their universities, are notoriously illegal, leading to suspensions and voiding team accomplishments.
The current Olympic model of student-athletes receiving money for training and prizes for accomplishments seems to present an unusual double standard for the NCAA. Perhaps instead of standing still on this issue and maintaining the contradictory status-quo, the NCAA should consider what it allows for its Olympians for all of its student-athletes; the result could allow for more students to remain in school rather than leaving for the pros and wouldn’t adversely affect the finances of already-strapped schools.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.