The new NCAA constitution, which discusses student-athlete benefits, went into effect on Aug. 1. Photo courtesy of WikiMedia Commons.
By Genevieve Zahner ’26
Staff Writer
The National Collegiate Athletic Association has been a lucrative institution since its inception in 1906, bringing in millions of dollars in revenue every year from its participating schools. The way the NCAA operates has long seemed set in stone, but over the years the question of whether or not Division I student-athletes should be paid has risen to prominence following conversations about the monetization of athletes’ name, image and likeness. Developed in January 2022, a new NCAA constitution that focuses on managing financial benefits for student-athletes and decision-making authority within Division I conferences went into effect on Aug. 1, 2022, according to an NCAA press release.
The NCAA has undergone scrutiny for the lack of financial compensation for its athletes. Many believe that these athletes deserve salaries for the amount of effort and commitment they give to their college or university, as well as the copious amounts of revenue they bring in per season. According to Sportico, the NCAA made 1.16 billion dollars in revenue in 2021, with over 85 percent of that income generated from the March Madness basketball tournament alone.
Additionally, the NCAA has been involved in multiple legal battles over whether or not student-athletes should be paid. Associated Press News stated that a Supreme Court ruling from June 2021 held that the organization is not allowed to limit education-related benefits, such as paid internships, study abroad and graduate programs. However, there was no official ruling on salaries for athletes. The new NCAA constitution states that student-athletes are prohibited from receiving financial benefits from participating institutions for taking part in sports, but may receive educational and other benefits in accordance with the guidelines of their athletic division, as reported by CNBC. Unlike Division I schools, the change will likely have little effect on Division II and III institutions, which do not offer athletic scholarships.
“It seems as though the colleges are finding a way around the pay-for-play by labeling these financial benefits as ‘educational benefits,’” Mount Holyoke Lacrosse athlete Hannah Bisson ’24, who is interested in a career in sports management for college athletics, said. “I think for Division [III] athletes, we have a greater focus on academics than Division I and II schools, and adding a salary for us would emphasize the importance of athletics rather than academics. This might cause Division [III] athletes to focus more or all of their attention on athletics and disregard their academics.” Student-athletes are already able to be paid by third parties for usage of their name, image or likeness, but the discussion of whether they should be provided with salaries is still yet to be had, U.S. News reported.
In the past, the NCAA’s Governing Board was a committee of 21 members, composed of athletic directors and university presidents, who reported to the Division I Board of Directors, as reported by U.S. News and World Report. This panel is now being trimmed down to nine members, which is made up of six members across the three divisions: four from Division I and one each from Divisions II and III. There are also two independent members, as well as one graduated student-athlete. There is an additional student-athlete on the board to serve as a non-voting member. Neither iteration of the committee had representation from every conference in Division I.
“I think the panel should have a member from each Division [I] school … Every school should be included in the decision-making process because each school might have a different opinion,” Bisson said. “Some Division [I] schools have teams that bring in a lot of revenue from their good sports teams, and they would be more able to provide educational benefits to their student athletes.
“Schools that are not as well-off financially end up not being able to provide as many educational benefits to their student-athletes, possibly resulting in the school continuing in a downward trend; they might not be able to recruit the most talented athletes because they cannot provide as much to them,” Bisson continued. “If these schools’ opinions are not accounted for, it isn't fair.”
One point discussed in the creation of the new constitution was about the budget disparity between schools in Division I. Division I is made up of 350 schools, including larger schools such as Texas A&M University, which have sports budgets of about 200 million dollars, as well as smaller schools which have budgets of less than 10 million dollars allocated for sports. The committee discussed many ideas in creating the new constitution, but there were major questions of what the requirements are for being classified as Division I, and how revenue is shared among the division when bigger conferences are bringing in more money. Division I has become inflated with schools, which led to the question of whether the NCAA should make a sub division out of Division I with a different governing body and different funding strategies. Wealthier conferences such as the Southeastern Conference and the Big Ten are less concerned than the smaller conferences about how revenue should be distributed among schools and how money should be spent on athletes for uniforms, facilities and coaching staff, as reported by CNBC.
Division I faces a large overturn in who controls decision-making in the wake of the new constitution with new guiding principles and values. This new constitution will give more power to schools and conferences, allowing each division to govern themselves, according to CNBC. The restructuring of Division I will take time, but the process has already begun and will continue to develop as college sports seasons progress.