Money was therefore foreign to amateur athletics at first.
That was appropriate because, among other reasons, athletics consumed little of the athletes’ time, unlike today when college athletes must train year around.
For example, the Selected Proceedings, which can be found at edu/sportslaw/, include articles in favor of paying college athletes* and arguments against.† There was also, however, one suggestion of a new way to look at this issue.
That came in the lunchtime remarks of David Drummond, a senior vice-president at Google and a former varsity football player at Santa Clara University.
As the New York Times recently stated about workers’ compensation for college athletes, the nationally televised, dramatic injury of Kevin Ware, a University of Louisville basketball player, has “…inflamed the debate about the treatment and care of unpaid college athletes who help generate hundreds of millions of dollars for their universities” The limits to what an athlete could receive for participation in college sports were appropriate in 1906 and arguably through 1984, when the U. The institutions reaping significant television revenue and BCS (Bowl Championship Series) revenue could now devise a process of compensation to their athletes that comports with traditional American notions of fairness in the marketplace, just as they have adjusted to comply with the gender equity provisions of Title IX, which was implemented in 1972.
The process of complying with Title IX has occurred despite the fact that it presented a financial challenge for many institutions, particularly those without significant television revenue streams.In that 100th year, 2006, NCAA President Myles Brand addressed the delegates at the NCAA Convention and noted that although the participants in college athletics should remain amateurs, the enterprise itself clearly is commercial in nature: “‘Amateur’ defines the participants,” Brand said, “not the enterprise.” Since the 1950’s, the NCAA has utilized the term “student-athlete,” a term that long-time NCAA President Walter Byers created, as he has explained, to avoid “…the dreaded notion that NCAA athletes could be indentified as employees by state industrial commissions and the courts.” Identification as employees would, of course, give NCAA athletes rights such as workers’ compensation, unionization and wages.Most of these are universities or colleges that are also members of the NCAA.The Nine Points approach seemed worth following up, particularly because of ISLE’s location in Silicon Valley, where much technology licensing occurs.That consistency was facilitated by a paper, Nine Points to Consider in Licensing University Technology, issued in 2007 by eleven distinguished institutions: California Institute of Technology; Cornell University; Harvard University; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Stanford University; University of Illinois, Chicago; University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; University of Washington; Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation; Yale University; and Association of American Medical Colleges (otl.stanford.edu/documents/whitepaper-10.pdf).Since 2007, over 90 additional institutions have adopted the Nine Points.His remarks, which are available at the link in the paragraph above, suggested that similar issues have been successfully addressed by universities that license technology created by students.His own company, Google, started with such licenses from Stanford University’s Office of Technology Licensing, licenses for which student inventors received payment.However, once the NCAA could no longer limit its members from maximizing their television revenues, those revenues increased exponentially and changed the landscape of college sports.Justice Byron White, who was a college football All-American, dissented in the Board of Regents case and warned of problems from vastly increased revenues flowing to college sports as a result of the Supreme Court ruling that the NCAA could no longer limit football TV revenues: By mitigating what appears to be a clear failure of the free market to serve the ends and goals of higher education, the NCAA ensures the continued availability of a unique and valuable product, the very existence of which might well be threatened by unbridled competition in the economic sphere.