Why Plans To Restart College Sports Are Coming Under Fire

USA Today Sports reporter Dan Wolken did not stutter when he explained that college athletic departments will be prioritizing money over students’ health this season: “Winning and losing is not the priority this year. The priority is getting through the season without a major incident or a disaster and for these schools to make as much money as possible to keep their athletic departments afloat.”

Schools have a complicated moral and ethical dilemma on their hands. Many rely on sports revenue to fund their athletic departments, fulfill multimillion-dollar contracts for televised sporting events, and pay their coaches enormous salaries, which are often the highest of their state’s public employees.

Faced with enormous financial losses, many universities are moving ahead on plans to resume sports, and athletes around the country are beginning summer training. According to Sports Illustrated, special training protocols include frequent screenings, socially distanced workouts, hand sanitizing stations at every door, and no physical contact. 

Resuming training comes with a set of risks, however. Associated Press reports that many schools, including Indiana University, University of Missouri, Ohio State and Southern Methodist University have all asked student-athletes to sign some form of waiver or awareness form. 

Legal professionals around the country are criticizing colleges and universities for asking athletes to sign these documents. Sports Illustrated quotes Ramogi Huma, executive director of the National College Players Association, a nonprofit advocacy group serving college athletes: “The premise of these schools to bring unpaid players on campus during a pandemic and claim they should be fine while coercing them into signing a liability waiver … there’s a lot wrong with this.” 

Sports attorney Gregg Clifton lays out the dilemma in Sports Illustrated: “I can understand, having represented a lot of universities, that they are very concerned about liability, but they need the revenue stream to stay alive,” he says. “They’ve got to walk this fine line.” 

Already, a number of athletes in summer training have tested positive for coronavirus. USA Today reports positive test results from a number of schools, including five from Southern Methodist University. Thirty football players from Louisiana State University are now in quarantine after testing positive for coronavirus or coming into contact with someone who did. 

If schools must weigh the pros and cons of going ahead with an athletic season, so must athletes. Athletes are not compensated for their revenue-driving participation in sports. The NCAA prohibits players from receiving compensation under the pretense of amateurism, declaring “student-athletes shall be amateurs in an intercollegiate sport, and their participation should be motivated primarily by education and by the physical, mental, and social benefits to be derived.” in their Division 1 Handbook, explains Business Insider. Furthermore, students are prohibited from using their name, image or likeness for monetary gain. The NCAA and universities, however, can.

In exchange for their athletic participation, many athletes receive scholarships that cover tuition, room and board. One of the main counter arguments against education as compensation is that athletes barely have enough time to devote to classes and studying, often missing classes or valuable study time as a result of their demanding athletic schedule. According to CNBC: “A 2014 study by the National Labor Relations Board showed that players at major college football programs “spend 50 to 60 hours per week on their football duties during a one-month training camp prior to the start of the academic year and an additional 40 to 50 hours per week on those duties during the three- or four-month football season.’” 

Reportedly, the coronavirus waivers ensure that athletic scholarships will be honored, though it’s unclear whether this holds true for athletes who choose not to play this season or those who choose to redshirt. 

Redshirting allows athletes an extra year of NCAA eligibility while allowing them the opportunity to continue to attend school. But redshirting wouldn’t do much to protect athletes from the coronavirus, as traditionally, athletes who redshirt are still required to continue to train and attend practices and games. The question becomes, if athletes choose to redshirt for coronavirus reasons, will the extenuating circumstances exempt them from participation? Will special policies be created for athletes at high risk of falling critically ill from coronavirus, such as those with asthma or diabetes? Should some athletes choose not to play for their school this year, will they also be choosing to forgo their scholarships? Will they be welcomed back on their teams next season?

The NCAA has a long history of capitalizing on athletes. It’s notorious for its lack of organization and inability to respond to feedback with reform. Athletes around the country have been calling for such reform, particularly to policies regarding name, image and likeness, but also to those requiring athletes to compete at the collegiate level before joining the professional ranks, and limiting eligibility for transfer students, among others.

Athletes should prioritize their health this summer and fall. At a time when the country is finally discussing deeply rooted inequalities and cautiously approaching reopening with concern for national health, this might be the perfect time to force the NCAA to make some of the changes people have been calling for for years.

This past spring, the NCAA Division 1 Council granted an additional year of eligibility to athletes whose spring seasons were cut short as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. For fall athletes, the contagious nature of the coronavirus is well known. It’s time for universities and the NCAA to find a solution to the problem at hand, and to find a way for athletes to avoid signing questionable liability waivers, and to protect their health.