The generation of hundreds of millions of dollars from media coverage contracts, bowl championship series (BCS) games, the National Collegiate Athletic AssociationÆs (NCAA) basketball tournament, and increased merchandising is made for colleges and universities from the talent of Division I-A athletes. Despite these enormous revenues college athletes are locked by NCAA regulations into a system of virtual penal servitude where they continue to be exploited with economic reward, which is why it is time for the NCAA to compensate athletes in major college athletics programs.
In 1992 the NCAA was offered a staggering ô$143 millionö for the rights to cover the NCAA basketball tournament (Taylor 1994, p. 124).
Lee (1997) maintains ôItÆs time we stop punishing student-athletesö (14).
In post-season NCAA football appearances, teams were rewarded ôan average of $8ö for a bowl appearance and the 1997 contract signed by CBS to cover NCAA basketball over eight years is ôworth more than $1.75 billionö (Lee, 1997, p. 15).
Lee (1997) ôStudent athletes should be paid, maybe once a year because of the amount of money the schools make from them. Probably in the next generation, athletes will be paidö (p. 15).
Taylor (1994) argues NCAA athletes have ôthe right to a modest income: (p. 124).
Sharp (2004) argues that NCAA bylaws ôprohibit a student-athlete from receiving money for advertisements and endorsementsö (p. 236).
Wendel (2005) argues ôThe NCAA historically has been against pay-for-playö but that ôto think any differently in this day and age is truly madnessö (p. 23A).
Wendel (2005) argues that ôThe game is nothing without the players, and itÆs time they were modestly compensated for their effortsö (p. 23A).
Rossi (2002) maintains that ôThe NCAA maintains regulations on æadditional benefitsÆ that on a good day may be properly labeled as Byzantine in structure and capricious in their