A New Era: Compensation for

Participation in Collegiate
Athletics
December 19, 2014
Nathan Chmiel, Lyndsey Diggs and Alan Pancake

2
Introduction
(Lyndsey Diggs)
When the word rewards comes to mind, the terms money, benefits, compensation, and
perks are often closely associated. However, money and financial increase are not the only forms
of rewards that exist within the confines of an organization. According to Kinicki and Fugate
(2012), rewards are compensation and benefits, personal and professional growth opportunities
and a motivating work environment that includes recognition, job design and a work-life
balance (p. 207). There are a multitude of different rewards: intrinsic, extrinsic, financial,
nonfinancial, social, career, direct compensation, indirect compensation, performance-based and
membership-based (p. 207-208). The National College Athletic Association (NCAA) is facing an
era of inevitable change. As a result, the organization must seriously consider implementation of
a more mutually-agreeable compensation or awards system for its student-athletes.
With the recent unraveling of the OBannon v. NCAA (2009) trial, the question of
whether or not collegiate athletes should be paid has become an extremely hot-button issue. The
root of the lawsuit stemmed from former UCLA basketball standout, Ed OBannons displeasure
with the NCAAs unlawful and unethical practices for coercing student-athletes to outright deny
themselves the opportunity of directly reaping the benefits from commercial use of their image
and likeness. Additionally, Ed OBannon had difficulty just dismissing the fact that even once
these college athletes graduated or forgone their remaining seasons of eligibility to on to compete
at other varying levels of competition in their respective sports, they still did not receive any
payment for the repeated use of their image or likeness (Frontline, 2011).
As a result of those frustrations, a lawsuit came to fruition. This lawsuit has the potential
to change the entire scope of intercollegiate at every level. As a result of the OBannon v. NCAA

3
lawsuit, the NCAA is potentially facing a drastic change in the dynamics of collegiate athletics; a
change that will irreversibly alter the nature and foundation of collegiate athletics and the
NCAAs business practices. Change is the process of making something new or different in some
capacity. Change essentially has four levels of change according to Kinicki and Fugate (2012),
which include unfreezing, benchmarking, changing and refreezing (p. 424-425) and is not a
process that simply happens overnight and will require patience, time, and negotiations,
particularly on the NCAAs end.
According to ESPN reports, this particular lawsuit is seeking an unidentified amount of
damages to be paid by the NCAA to former athletes from whose images they made substantial
revenue gains. Additionally, they are requesting for an injunction to be issued that prohibits the
NCAAs use of imaging licenses rights (ESPN, Associated Press, 2009).
A new era in the world of collegiate athletics is upon us; an era in which high-profile
student athletes like the Johnny Manziels, the Braxton Millers, the AJ McCarrons, the Jabari
Parkers, the Jameis Winstons, the Scoochie Smiths, the Aaron and Andrew Harrisons of
collegiate athletics will reap the benefits of their hard work. Finally the time will come for these
athletes to be compensated for their competitiveness, athleticism and their fan appeal. Most
importantly will be the opportunity for collegiate athletes to reap the rewards of the revenue they
help their universities and specifically their respective athletic departments, generate.
There are many sides to this argument: some argue that athletes should not be paid;
conversely, some argue that absolutely, athletes should be paid. Some say these athletes should
be delegated a trust fund for the money they earn for the use of their image and likeness to be
made accessible upon graduation. And yet others still have suggested that athletic scholarships

4
are compensation enough and the athletes should be grateful for the collegiate athletic and
educational experience. No matter what on which side of the argument one falls, the
deliberations of this case will plague the NCAA landscape.
Analysis of Organizational Behavior
(Lyndsey Diggs)
There is undeniably an aura of inequity behind NCAA operations, procedures, and
policies that is in dire need of change. Young student-athletes are exploited for lack of a better
word. Athletes are essentially punching the clock in excess of 50 hours per week, are expected
to carry a full time class schedule and maintain a certain grade point average for eligibility, not to
mention all of the other obligations required that are not explicitly expressed at the time of their
National Letter of Intent signing. The most controversial component isnt the exhaustive nature
of their workload, but in the fact that coaches and university presidents receive hefty salaries on
the principle, effort and grunt work of exploited and somewhat oppressed athletes (Gorwitz,
2013).
The debate about whether or not to compensate student athletes beyond their athletic
scholarships has created a state of uproar and uncertainty within the NCAAs organizational
structure. As an organization they most explicitly struggle with the potential inability to
successfully manage conflict in its many forms. Kinicki and Fugate (2012) have described
conflict as a process in which one party perceives that its interests are being opposed or
negatively affected by another party (p. 286). While there is support and opposition in regards
to the idea of pay for play, in its current state the NCAA is operating under the umbrella of
dysfunctional conflict, which is characterized by the capability to threaten the organizations
interests (p. 287).

5
In considering whether or not to go back to the drawing board and strategize a plan of
attack for student athlete compensation, the NCAA sees a threat to their own selfish interest on
behalf of student athletes and supporters of their cause. While student-athletes believe they
should directly benefit from the NCAAs revenue stream from media and image/likeness usage,
the NCAA has expressed a blatant disinterest and willingness to do so. However, the
organizations inflexibility in the matter could cause major detriment to the NCAAs
organizational structure, as it exists today.
In an effort to better handle the conflict, the NCAA could implore one of the conflicthanding tactics expressed by Kinicki and Fugate (2012): integrating, dominating, avoiding,
obliging, and compromising (p. 299). Integrating is a style that is in large part, most beneficial
for complex issues that are often characterized by misunderstanding. Specifically integrating is
described as interested parties confront the issue and cooperatively identify the problem,
generate and weigh alternative solutions, and select a solution (p. 299). Obliging, is also
referred to as smoothing is most appropriate in a scenario where there will be some form of
reciprocation. Obliging, tends to minimize differences and highlight similarities to please the
other party (p. 299).
The third style is dominating, or forcing and should be utilized in instances where an
unpopular solution is necessary for implementation. Dominating relies on formal authority to
force compliance (p. 299). Avoiding is most beneficial in circumstances involving minute or
trivial matters. Avoiding involves either passive withdrawal from the problem or active
suppression of the issue (p. 299). Lastly, compromising is most fitting when the involved parties
having opposing viewpoints and goals. Compromising is defined as a give-and-take-approach
involving moderate concern for both self and others (p. 300).

6
As far as the NCAA is concerned, the most productive modes of conflict resolution
would be a hybrid of obliging and compromising. In an effort to maintain their organizational
culture, the NCAA has to start considering negotiations. While they want the money, many of the
student-athletes involved in the conversation need the money. While it is nice for every member
on the Board of Directors to receive a handsome six to seven-figure annual salary, is it necessary,
when student-athletes have families who cannot even afford transportation costs to attend their
sporting events? According to research conducted by Thomas Hurst (2000),
Student-athletes should be paid because many of them need the money. Full
scholarships do not provide student-athletes with any spending money. Thus, it is
difficult for many student-athletes, especially those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, to go out on dates or even return home for a family
emergency (Hurst, p. 57).
That is an interesting crossroad to grapple with: six-billion dollar organization unwilling to
entertain the idea of compensating student athletes beyond athletic scholarship. With arguments
as such, the NCAA is portrayed in an unfavorable and predatory light: as a money-hungry entity
that inequitably exploits its athletes and makes an astronomical profit doing so. That is not an
image the NCAA wants floating around for too long.
(Nathan Chmiel)
The NCAA working under this dysfunctional conflict umbrella not only has to worry
about conflict but also the reward system they will have to implement if they ultimately decide to
financially compensate players. The NCAA needs to look at a total rewards system which
Kinicki and Fugate (2012) define as a reward system that encompasses not only compensation
and benefits, but also personal and professional growth opportunities (p. 207).

7
If the NCAA decided to pay-for-play platform like this then they would be compensating
players for their performance on the field, court, etc., but also making sure they were better
equipped for life in the professional business world by treating them as paid professionals or
employees. This would improve the athletes view of the NCAA and would motivate athletes to
not only go to school, but also to stay in school until they graduate since they would be making
money and receiving benefits, resources and opportunities that would better equip them to handle
to complexities of the business world. Such a compromise is essentially a win-win scenario
because it creates more opportunities for profitability and revenue for the NCAA but also allows
the athletes to receiving a complete education and a college diploma.
These various rewards that the NCAA could provide to the athletes would aid in
resolving the conflict as well as minimize talk of exploitation of student-athletes on behalf of the
NCAA by shedding light on the multitude of ways in which they are improving the lives of
athletes in a manner that spans far beyond college and the scope of college athletics. By vesting
a holistic interest in the athletes well being, even beyond their college years, the NCAA is able
to simultaneously protect themselves by offering a system that is difficult to dispute. By
implementing a more favorable rewards system that the athletes would want and benefit from the
NCAA would improve its overall image because in order to be successful and maintain order
they need the athletes to be successful and to a certain extent happy; when the athletes are happy
then there chances to be successful also increase.
(Alan Pancake)
There are heavy negotiations between the NCAA and the student- athletes it governs over
whether they should be paid or not. Negotiation is defined as a give-and-take decision-making
process involving independent parties with different preferences (Kinicki & Fugate, 2012, p.

8
302). These negotiations are necessary because the student-athletes are in need of money and the
NCAA makes an overabundance of it in large part because of the athletes. The type of
negotiation that could be extremely successful is integrative negotiation, which is defined as an
agreement between the two parties that is better for both parties than what could have been
accomplished through distributive negotiation (p. 302).
Applying this integrative approach would mean using the added-value negotiation tactics.
Added-value negotiation (AVN) is defined in the text as the negotiating parties cooperatively
developing multiple deal packages while building a productive long-term relationship (p. 303)
Currently, the two parties are in the clarify interest stage, meaning they are identifying tangible
and intangible needs and trying to find common ground (p.303). The main focus is on the
financial compensation and benefits but there are other goals that each side is trying to bring to
light and until all of those come out and are hashed out the two parties will continue to negotiate.
The next step in the negotiating would be to identify options meaning the discussion of the
desired elements of value (p. 303). Using this negotiation the NCAA and student athletes could
come to an agreement that would still allow the NCAA to remain profitable, but would likewise
reward the student-athletes for their contributions to the NCAAs revenue and success, which is
much deserved.
Recommendations
(Lyndsey Diggs)
In light of recent events, in particular, the OBannon v. NCAA case, compensation for
student-athletes has become an increasingly popular topic amongst member universities all
across the country. The primary lesson to be learned not only from the case, but from debates on
every side of the issue, is that the NCAA must do a better job at preparing for and then handling

9
conflict and communicating information with the different conferences and member universities.
The NCAA boasts an identity based on inequity and exploitation, both of which are controversial
issues that can lead to conflict.
If the NCAA loses this uphill battle, the foundational principles of collegiate athletics and
amateurism will be drastically altered. The scope of college athletics and separation of divisions
will be compromised and inequalities in financial compensation amounts would lead to increased
conflict and uneasiness amongst the NCAA, its member universities, college coaches, college
athletes and the greatest consumer: college sports fans. It has come to the point where the NCAA
must consider negotiations that benefit not only their business interests, but the interests of all
involved parties. Negotiation is give-and-take decision-making process involving
interdependent parties with different preferences (Kinicki & Fugate, 2012, p. 302). There are
two primary forms of negotiation: distributive and integrative. The NCAA will have to take an
integrative (give and take) approach and work with the requests and demands of student-athletes
unless they want to see their organization destroyed.
First and foremost, the NCAA needs to prepare for a loss in the OBannon case and
ponder the repercussions associated with such a result. If they can anticipate the worst-case
scenario then they will be better equipped to handle it. Also, if such an outcome should arise, the
NCAA will not be nearly as devastated and will have had time to draft up proposed changes or
negotiations in an attempt to maintain some bargaining power. Essentially, the NCAA needs to
drop the faade and recognize that they indeed are vulnerable and must be willing to give up
something for the betterment of collegiate athletics and its participants.
Secondly, the NCAA needs to be prepared to change; for better or for worse, change is
coming and resistance to change is only going to make the process more strenuous. The only

10
thing constant is change and therefore the NCAA has to be willing to take a closer look at their
policies, procedures and protocols for the betterment of their member institutions, but also for the
evolution of collegiate athletics on a broader scale. If there is continued refusal to accept the
change that is coming, failure will be inevitable and the NCAA will suffer tremendously. They
have to minimize and eventually eliminate their resistance to change including. Resistance to
change is identified by Kinicki and Fugate (2012) as an emotional or behavioral response to real
or imagined changes (p. 433); such resistance on behalf of the NCAA comes in the forms of:
surprise and fear of the unknown, fear of failure, loss of job status/security, past success, and
failure (or unwillingness) to legitimize change (p. 434-435). The NCAA must learn to become
resilient to change through the tactics of participation and involvement, facilitation and support,
negotiation and agreement, and explicit and implicit coercion (p. 438) if they are interested in
preserving the existence of the organization.
Thirdly, the NCAA needs to learn how to better manage conflict. Primarily, as an
organization the NCAA needs to understand that all conflict is not bad and some conflict is
necessary for forward progression. Conflict comes in a multitude of forms, some of which are
beneficial for maintaining healthy organizational structure and function. They have already
exposed themselves to dysfunctional conflict, however if moving forward they can channel
conflict in a functional manner the organization and all of its members will be better for it.
Next, the NCAA must be willing to negotiate. In their present state the NCAA has
articulated an unwillingness to accept change and consider the demands of student-athletes for
compensation for their contribution to the NCAA as well as their member universities. This is a
dangerous path to continue down. The student-athletes, particularly mens basketball and football
program are the money generators for NCAA-affiliated colleges and universities throughout the

11
nation. They, through their appeal and commendable athletic ability, sell out arenas and stadiums,
impact consumers shopping habits in terms of licensed college apparel and help boost their
respective schools application numbers. As such an integral part of the revenue stream for the
NCAA, it is wise that they consider it a priority to keep them happy. A strike on behalf of
student-athletes who feel robbed, exploited or short changed would be a horrific nightmare; one
that could virtually single-handedly destroy the NCAAs multi-billion dollar structure.
Likewise, in their negotiations the NCAA needs to realize that rewards come in all
different forms and money is not the only way nor is it the only answer. Direct pay for play is
great, but so is transportation and lodging accommodations for families to attend their student
athletes-athletic competitions, so is a stipend for clothing for jobs interviews, so is the
availability of team cars to run errands, visit family, go on dates, etc., so is job training, so are
professional networking seminars, so are tickets to sporting/entertainment events, so are stocks
and bonds, so is technology such as a tablet or computer, so are trust funds, and the list goes on
and on. An outright paycheck is not the only solution to the problem, and believing that it is a
grave misconception that will prove to be detrimental.
Finally, the NCAA should do a better job in protecting itself in its entirety. In particular, if
the NCAA agreed to settle in the OBannon case, it could have prevented an outcome that may
jeopardize their entire current state of existence, authority and profitability. Essentially, they
should do a better job at meeting the needs of their student-athletes, who are the primary driving
forces that keep its well being afloat. The inflexibility, stubbornness and winner-take-all
mentality and approach may end up being the pivotal contributing factors that inevitably alter the
landscape of collegiate athletics.

12
Due to an unwillingness to put equity before selfish financial gain, the NCAA has
encountered ferocious beasts that come in varying shapes, sizes and colors, but are often times
just called student-athletes. Despite their tendency to exhibit orneriness, the NCAA should begin
drafting proposals for mutually agreeable compensation/benefits packages for student-athletes at
the varying levels of competition. If they are unwilling to negotiate and create a reasonable
reward system for student-athletes, they should prepare to write their own death certificate and
get comfortable with the notion that their organization as they know it could in the near future
cease to exist.

13
References
Barbash, L. (2013). Pay or Don't Play. Washington Monthly, 45(9/10), 13-15.
Brill, John (2014). Should College Athletes Be Paid? The Shirley Povich Center for Sports
Journalism. 2-7. Web. Retrieved Nov 11, 2014 from http://povichcenter.org/should-collegeathletes-be-paid-should-there-be-an-age-restriction-for-pros/
Eitzen, S. D. (2000, September). Slaves of big-time college sports: College athletes. USA Today (Society
for the Advancement of Education), 125.
Gorwitz, Z. (2013, October). Money Madness: Why and How NCAA Athletes Should be Paid.
Retrieved from http://dukepoliticalreview.org/money-madness-why-and-how-ncaa-athletesshould-be-paid/
Hurst, T. (2000). Payment of Student-Athletes: Legal & (and) Practical Obstacles. Jeffrey S. Moorad
Sports Law Journal, 7(1), 1-64. Retrieved Nov. 15, 2014 from
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/mslj/vol7/iss1/4
Johnson, James A. (2014, May). It Is Not Time to Pay College Athletes. NYSBA, Entertainment Arts and
Sports Law Journal, Spring 2014, 25(1). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2435895
Kinicki, A., & Fugate, M. (2012). Organizational Behavior: Key concepts, skills & best practices. (5th
ed., pp. 209-438). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Nocera, Joe (2011, December). Lets Start Paying College Athletes. The New York Times Magazine.
N.p. Web. Retrieved Nov. 7, 2014 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/lets-startpaying-college-athletes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
PBS (2011, March). Frontline. Money and March Madness: NCAA Lawsuit. N.P. (Updated: 4 Oct
2011). Web. Retrieved Nov. 14, 2014 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/money-andmarch-madness/ncaa-lawsuit/

14
Schneider, R. G. (2001). COLLEGE STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS ON THE PAYMENT OF
INTERCOLLEGIATE STUDENT-ATHLETES. College Student Journal, 35(2), 232.
Willborn, Steven L. (2014, April). College Athletes as Employees: An Overflowing Quiver. University
of Miami Law Review. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=24301.

15
Appendix
(Lyndsey Diggs)
Hurst, T. (2000). Payment of Student-Athletes: Legal & (and) Practical Obstacles. Jeffrey S. Moorad
Sports Law Journal, 7(1), 1-64. Retrieved Nov. 15, 2014 from
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/mslj/vol7/iss1/4
In his article, Thomas Hurst discusses collegiate athletics specifically at the Division I
level and describes the business and organizational structure as essentially big business! He
starts off by putting things into perspective: the NCAA budget during the 1977-1978 school
year was $270 million (Hurst, 2000, p. 55). That was over 35 years ago! In the last decade
alone, the NCAA and current budget has increased astronomically just in the last decade alone.
He asserted that the rapid revenue streams at large universities all around the nation were a direct
result of football and mens and womens basketball programs.
The focal point of his article was to illustrate the complexities associated with paying
student-athletes and propose a happy medium that could somewhat please all parties involved. In
doing so the NCAA would be engaging in a concept better known as negotiation. The authors of
the text define negotiation as, a give-and-take decision-making process involving independent
parties with different preferences (Kinicki & Fugate, 2012, p. 302). At this point, negotiation
seems to be the NCAAs only opportunity for survival and prosperity. Hurst ends with great food
for thought to ponder while evaluating student-athlete compensation. He suggests that in an
effort to make it as close to a win-win scenario, universities could use revenue generated to pay
the student-athletes directly discrediting the argument that to pay student athletes would be far
too expensive. The NCAA has to express a willingness to accept an integrative negotiation,
rather than a winner-take-all persona. This article will be extremely beneficial in brainstorming

16
recommendations for the NCAA in terms of negotiation, change and conflict, all of which are
concepts the NCAA must consider moving forward.
Brill, John (2014). Should College Athletes Be Paid? The Shirley Povich Center for Sports
Journalism. 2-7. Web. Retrieved Nov 11, 2014 from http://povichcenter.org/should-collegeathletes-be-paid-should-there-be-an-age-restriction-for-pros/
John Brill uses this article as a means to illustrate the main differences between the
NCAA and the NBA and NFL. He discusses amateurism and capitalist practices exhibited on
behalf of the NCAA. He weighs both sides of the pay for play in collegiate athletics argument.
One of his main talking points was rooted in the fact that a key point as to why the NCAA
would not want to pay athletes is to maintain the amateur status of its reputation (Brill, 2014, p.
2).
While the NCAAs hesitation is understandable they have to start willing to make much
needed negotiations and be willing to make changes. Brill continues to talk about the revenue
outlets enjoyed by colleges and universities all around the country including media revenue and
money generated from apparel and paraphernalia with the respective schools logos as well as
particular players numbers. If colleges and universities are enjoying that revenue it is pertinent
that they begin discussions and take the necessary steps toward negotiating a system in which the
athletes benefit as well; such a democratic practice is known as integrative negotiation.
Finally, but perhaps most importantly, was his defining of amateurism and how
amateurism essentially dictates the limited options for compensating athletes. According to his
research and findings, John Brill reported that Areas in which the NCAA defies its own
devotion to amateurism are the sale of video games licenses, game merchandise, footage, etc.,
that provide direct profit for the association. The players directly promote these examples, but

17
the benefits received are to the NCAA and schools alone. Amateurism then serves as the guise
used by the NCAA to take advantage of gifted athletes, in a way creating a system that benefits
off of their talents for at least a couple years at a time (Brill, 2014, p. 3-4). In regards to change,
the definition and application of amateurism will eventually have to change if the NCAA wants
to keep its organization afloat and appease the student-athletes that make it possible.
This resource will be extremely beneficial in evaluating the concept of amateurism and
coming up with strategies for compensating athletes that doesnt take away from the nature of the
amateurism. Our texts explains that rewards come in many different forms and so if direct
cash/check payment for play or participation for student-athletes is outlandish in the mind of the
NCAA there are a plethora of other options to consider.
John Brills discussion, research and analysis of amateurism particularly in conjunction
with media rights, brand licensing and the exploitation of players image and likeness for
monetary gain on behalf of the NCAA and respective colleges and universities. Student-athletes,
most specifically mens basketball and football players are the most monetized sports and yet
they still do not reap the direct rewards or compensation as a result. Relying on the work of John
Brill we will be able to take a more deliberate focus on fine tuning a true definition of
amateurism that really agrees with the nature of being a student-athlete and negotiate ideas to
lessen the exploitation and inequity that exists in the realm of collegiate athletics, while
minimizing the dysfunctional conflict.
(Alan Pancake)
Johnson, James A. (2014, May). It Is Not Time to Pay College Athletes. NYSBA, Entertainment Arts
and Sports Law Journal, Spring 2014, 25(1). Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2435895

18
This article talks about why it is not the time to pay student athletes. The first thing it
talks about is that amateurism trumps a student athletes right to publicity. That scholarship
money is enough and the value of the scholarship is equal to the value of the students fame. It
also talks about how it would be irresponsible to pay the student athletes because you dont know
what they are going to do with the money they receive. Not to mention the problems it might
cause with teammates because not everyone is as popular so not everyone would make the same
money. The next main point the article talks about is the fact that wealthier schools would spend
more money and buy up all the talent. The author also makes the case that too many people
would take the money and run and that we shouldnt reward the one and done players and that
the focus should be on higher education. It concludes with the fact that amateurism and higher
education should be maintained.
This article really focuses on payments as rewards particularly in the form of financial
compensation. A reward is defined in the text as compensation and benefits, personal and
professional growth opportunities and a motivating work environment that includes recognition,
job design and a work-life balance (Kinicki, Fugate, p. 207). The article also discusses whether
or not paying student athletes is a fair reward since they are already receiving scholarships. This
would be an example of an extrinsic reward, which is defined in the text as reward from the
environment (p. 208). In particular the article talks about the student athletes taking this
compensation above and beyond their scholarships, then abandoning the athletic programs and
universities for a career in the NFL.
The article says that people shouldnt be rewarded for leaving school early. But they also
could be leaving for another form of reward in the form of personal growth, which is a different
type of reward and defined in the text as training, career development, and performance

19
management (p. 207), because they would be going to play stiffer competition and they would
be provided with better training and more career development opportunities. This would be a
more intrinsic reward meaning it is self-granted (p. 208). Therefore, after reviewing this article it
has been made clear that the NCAA needs to create a balance in rewards and benefits for student
athletes.
Willborn, Steven L. (2014, April). College Athletes as Employees: An Overflowing Quiver. University
of Miami Law Review. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=24301.
This article talks about the unionization attempts by the Northwestern players. It goes
into the details of the lawsuit and what constitutes an employee. Then it goes into how most
schools would be against unionizing because it can only be private institutions that give
scholarships and that is a very small portion of schools. Also the unionization would not include
walk-ons because they are not under scholarship. The article then goes on to talk about other
cases of unionization similar to the Northwestern situation and how those outcomes would affect
the Northwestern case. The author also talks about how the unionization wouldnt help very
many student athletes and therefore why it pretty much died down.
This article is very helpful because it discusses the negotiation of athletes trying to be
seen as employees and the rewards, which they deem fair. Negotiation is defined in the book as
a give-and-take decision-making process involving independent parties with different
preferences. (Kinicki & Fugate, p. 302) The type of negotiation used for this issue is integrative
negotiation, which is defined as an agreement between the two parties that is better for both
parties than what could have been accomplished through distributive negotiation. (p. 302) Also it
discusses how the rewards are necessary for the athletes because of the time and effort they put
into their sport. A good reward system should attract talented people and motivate and satisfy

20
them once they have joined the organization (p. 209). According to the text one of the reasons
rewards often fail to motivate is that they show a lack of appreciation for the efforts (p. 211) and
that is something the article addresses, the feeling of being unappreciated. After reading this
article it is clear that more negotiations will be going on between the two parties in reference to
the rewards that would be fair for student-athletes.
(Nathan Chmiel)
Barbash, L. (2013). Pay or Don't Play. Washington Monthly, 45(9/10), 13-15.
In the article Pay or Dont Play Louis Barbash talks about how the NCAA and the NBA
have benefited from mens college basketball not being paid and essentially controlled by both
parties. It was controlled by the NBA because there used to be a rule that you could not be signed
by an NBA team until your class graduated from college. This meant that the college teams
always had a steady stream of talent coming in, who were unpaid and could be used to generate
money through apparel, tickets, and TV contracts. But this did not turn out so good because of
academic scandals and how some schools werent keeping academics as a priority and athletes
werent staying eligible. So they changed the rule in 1971 to the hardship rule which meant
that players could leave college early and get drafted if they came from low-income situations.
The rule was then changed again to he one and done rule meaning players can leave after their
first year of college.
Barbash then goes on to talk about how big time football and basketball schools should
be separated from everyone else and play by a set of rules that fits them best. And how
basketball and football teams are to be run like other areas of business on campus, meaning they
should be aid like any other student who has a job on campus. Louis Barbash thinks that since
the schools bring in so much money that they can afford to pay the players a salary. Barbash

21
continues to say that the teams should also have representation through unions. The players
would also not have to go to school but rather as a fringe benefit and mainly focus on basketball
during the season and pursue there education in the off season or after their eligibility runs out.
Barbash just thinks that the colleges and universities just need to share the wealth with the people
who make them their wealth.
According to our textbook, Organizational Behavior: Key Concepts, Skills & Best
Practices by Angelo Kinicki and Mel Fugate (2012), Chapter 8 to talks about about paying for
performance and how companies and organizations use pay to improve employee performance.
This is a good example of what this article talked about because in the article it talked about how
players of the top schools should pay players because of the enormous amount of money they
make for these schools. A way that players could get paid this way would to not reward athletes
for their performances on the field, but how they perform in the classroom. Using a pay scale
like this, athletes would be paid money depending on how good their grades are and not for what
they would be doing on the field. This would be positive reinforcement for athletes to do well in
the classroom as well on the field motivating more athletes to finish degrees and then make the
jump to professional athletics.
The NCAA could also make rules for the schools to not only pay an athlete depending on
how good their grades are but also if they get in any disciplinary troubles. If an athlete gets in
trouble he or she would lose some of the amount that they would be paid; using this negative
consequence to try and defer athletes from breaking rules and getting in trouble. This is an idea
by psychologist Edward L. Thorndike and his law of effect. The law of effect states that
behaviors with favorable consequences (like getting paid more) tend to be repeated and behavior

22
with unfavorable consequences (like losing ay when getting in trouble or having bad grades) tend
to disappear.
Schneider, R. G. (2001). COLLEGE STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS ON THE PAYMENT OF
INTERCOLLEGIATE STUDENT-ATHLETES. College Student Journal, 35(2), 232.
This article is a survey given to 485 college students about what they think about paying
college athletes. The results from this study showed four things, (a) College students supported
payment of student athletes. (b) College students thought that illegal payments would stop if
colleges were allowed to pay athletes. (c) Those opposed thought that a scholarship was payment
enough. And (d) Funding for payment should come from the athletic department.
Schneider and Raymond go on to talk about how the NCAA and coaching contracts are
very lucrative through endorsements, coaches salaries, and large stadiums with luxury boxes, all
of which add value and bring money into the university but the athletes who play these sports do
not get to see any of this money. They thought that these revenue streams would be able to make
enough money in order to pay the players that make all this money for the school.
To see how the normal college student was effected Schneider and Raymond looked to
find that student tuition and fees were used to help pay for athletic departments, so they decided
to see what the normal college student thought about paying athletes. So they mailed surveys
to 2,000 students from premier division 1 athletic conferences to get their results. They found
that out of the 485 usable surveys 54% believed athletes should get paid, and think that a
scholarship does not cover all costs of being an athlete. They reasoned to pay for this by using
the endorsement deals and athletic department budget, but surprisingly 24% said that raising
tuition to pay for the players payments should be implemented. Of the people who did not agree
with the payment of players, they thought that a scholarship was plenty payment enough. And

23
found that title IX as a reason to not pay athletes. So overall the normal college student from
premier division 1 athletic conferences thinks that they hold be paid by the school, because of
all the money that the schools make off of intercollege athletics.
This article relates to Chapter 8 in the textbook Organizational Behavior: key concepts,
skills & best practices by Angelo Kinicki and Mel Fugate. In Chapter 8 the authors talk about
how there are three sources of feedback, they are through others, task, and self. This article looks
at how the researcher looked at the feedback of the surveys in order to come to the conclusion
that athletes should be paid. This also goes with Chapter 10 decision making, by using the
Evidence-Based Decision Making Model.
The model has five steps starting with the first: Identify the problem. (In this case if
athletes got paid how others would react) The second step is Gather the Data and evaluate it.
(sending out serves) The third step is Gather External Data from published research. (looking at
other data in the area to see what others have found about the same issues) The fourth step is
Gather views from stakeholders affected (this is asking the students about how they felt about the
situation.) The final fifth step is, integrate and critically appraise all data and then make a
decision. This step has not been done in this article but is part of this process by showing others
feedback on the situation and bringing to light how students really feel about athletes getting
paid, and what it would do for college athletics.