NCAA Athletes In Olympic Sports Should Be Able To Keep Earnings; Rules Need Changing

Missy Franklin and Ryan Lochte accepting the Grand Prix Champion awards.

Photo Courtesy: Peter H. Bick

Commentary by Sandy Thatcher

TEXAS – The NCAA, in the face of many legal challenges, has been desperately trying to hold on to its cherished ideal of the “student-athlete” even while the business of big-time college sports has become ever more commercialized. But at what price to NCAA athletes in the so-called minor sports like swimming?

NCAA rules prohibit any college athletes participating in events. like the Arena Pro Am, from accepting prize money or money from endorsements. Thus an Olympian like Missy Franklin has been compelled to choose between competing for her Cal Bears college team and earning money as a professional in her sport. (In the photo above, Ryan Lochte took the money and Missy had to decline.) Yet why force anyone to make this hard choice? Ms. Franklin, and many other top college swimmers like her, already compete in the national and international meets where prize money is offered, with the encouragement of their coaches, both college and club. Why should they not reap the financial benefits?

Unlike basketball and football, there need be no concern here about burdening universities with any additional expenses. These pro events all have sponsors that put up the prize money; no funds come out of any university’s budget. Indeed, one might even argue that allowing top athletes to keep prize money could enable universities to offer scholarships to some athletes they cannot support currently, because the top-earning athletes in pro competition would not need athletic scholarships to pay for their college educations. Just to use one example of a swimmer who graduated from USC in 2012, Katinka Hosszu, her earnings in her first two years as a pro topped a half million

Exactly how does allowing a college athlete to compete as a pro run against the ideal of the student-athlete and the principle of amateurism anyway? Ms. Franklin intends to complete her education at Cal, so will remain a student while she is denied the privilege of continuing to compete as a member of the Cal team. And as for amateurism, the International Olympic Committee has long since abandoned that ideal as governing the participation of athletes in the Olympics. The NCAA is itself inconsistent. It allows high school tennis players, for instance, to earn up to $10,000 a year from tournaments without forfeiting the eligibility to play in college. Why not allow high school and club swimmers participating in Grand Prix meets to do the same?

The way the judicial system is reacting to suits like that brought by Ed O’Bannon should also make the NCAA worry that denying the ability of athletes to earn money is a failing strategy. The handwriting is on the wall here, and it may not be too long before some future Missy Franklin steps forward to challenge the NCAA’s archaic rules.

Name*

Email*

Welcome to our community. We invite you to join our discussion. Our community guidelines are simple: be respectful and constructive, keep on topic, and support your fellow commenters. Commenting signifies that you agree to our Terms of Use

Name*

Email*

6 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Bill Bell

9 years ago

I’m shocked! SHOCKED!! @ such a suggestion.

Y the next thing ya’ know you’ll suggest college gridders and hoopsters (or rather their teams) should be sponsored by commercial enterprises rather than the school’s athletic department so instead of the Ohio State Buckeyes vs. the USC Trojans we’d have the Ohio State adidases vs. the USC Trojan Nikes and the athletes themselves should receive (gasp!) MONEY for their time and effort.

Brent, swimmers (and by extension all Olympic sports participants) are pure amateurs. They compete solely for the “love of the game” and must NOT be corrupted by dirty filthy lucre. Leave that to the folks who compete on the gridiron or the hardwood.

D1 swimmer

9 years ago

Reply to Bill Bell

Bill Bell,

Let me clear things up for you.
1. “College gridders and hoopsters” ARE “sponsored by commercial enterprises.” USC and Ohio State are both sponsored by Nike. Their athletes are only allowed to wear the clothing provided by Nike. This is the same at every other BCS school as well as several other mid-major universities.
2. This article’s main point is that swimmers should be allowed to keep prize money from competition, not be paid.
3. Competing for the “love of the game” is the lie the NCAA keeps floating around in an attempt to keep the amateur-status of their student athletes. If it were all for a “love of the game” why did the NCAA sign a $10.8 billion deal with TBS?
4. You claim that “all Olympic sports participants… are pure amateurs.” Yet you claim that basketball players should be paid. Correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t basketball been played in every Olympic Games since 1936?

Again, this article does not argue that swimmers, or any student-athletes should be paid. Rather, it discusses the benefits of ending the amateur status of Olympic-sport athletes. I suggest you read it again, or rather, for the first time.

Jim Christian

9 years ago

Maybe put the money in trust until they exhaust their eligibility?

Andrew Kennedy

9 years ago

Keep the winnings, pay the taxes and move on.

flutterby

9 years ago

You mean giving them jobs folding towels in the locker room for $10 an hour isn’t enough?

The Olympics don’t require participants to be amateurs so why should the NCAA?

Desert Olympic Tritons

9 years ago

We feel any incentive that helps athletes excel and contribute to the sport of swimming and for their futures is a plus. Many things to modernize in the future for swim and all sports….