Marshall 1

Whitley Marshall

Soci 412

Final Paper

03 May 2017

The Social Stratification of College Sports: Is it Moral?

As a soon-to-be graduate of UNC Chapel Hill, there are many things that I appreciate about

the university, most notably the sports culture and our amazing tendency to win tournaments and

championship games on a consistent basis. However, this love of UNC basketball has made it

easy to overlook some of the crucial issues overlooking UNC athletics. Moreover, my younger

brother is a freshman at the University of Alabama, which could basically be considered an NFL

league all of its own. While I support both schools, both UNC and UA are byproducts of a

system that rewards universities instead of athletes, often at the expense of athletes themselves.

As such, I argue that big time college sports are an example of social stratification, where

universities are at the top of the class and athletes are placed at the bottom.

In a Vice article, Patrick Hruby quotes Michigan State University professors, who argue that

revenue-producing campus football and mens basketball hold black athletes in legal servitude

for the profit and entertainment of whites (Hruby 3). While not all athletes are black, the

majority of athletes at big time schools playing basketball and football are; at UNC, not one

starting player for the basketball team is white. Further, the amount of money colleges can earn

off of their players is astounding, further solidifying the statement that black athletes are indeed

in legal servitude. The NCAA holds these athletes accountable in multiple ways and even dictate

how athletes spend their days on campus. For instance, athletes cannot hold part-time jobs and

cannot profit from autographs of any sort. However, it is perfectly acceptable for the athletes
 Marshall 2

university to profit off of an athletes name and reputation. When UNC won the championship

game April 3, I have a suspicion that UNCs Student Stores knew they would be making a hefty

profit; they can design and sell T-shirts proclaiming that UNC won, as well as a plethora of other

merchandise. Furthermore, it is not just UNCs Student Stores profiting: the NCAA also earns

money from merchandise sales. A quick search on www.shopncaasports.com illustrates that the

NCAA is very active in promoting sales, as there is championship game available for every sport

available, including bowling, womens hockey, and wrestling. Again, this money does not get

redistributed to any athletes, but rather to the NCAA. The NCAA decides who is allowed to

produce merchandise and profit from it, and it also makes the decision that athletes cannot

benefit from their own success. To put it into perspective, we have two groups, one

predominantly white, the other predominantly black, and only one has the power and writes the

rules for its benefit (Hruby 5), with the latter being the NCAA.

The most common argument against the notion that the NCAA engages in social stratification

is that athletes receive free tuition. Additionally, no one forced them to come to a university and

be an athlete. But for athletes that potentially want to move to the next level, going to college

first is not an option, its a requirement (one that the NCAA created and enforces). As such, it

can be argued that athletes have little to no power regarding their future. For the star high school

football or basketball player, a dream of playing in the NBA or the NFL requires college. And

for that one or more years attended, they will contribute to their university and the NCAA

earning millions. Is this ethical? I would argue no, as these athletes do not have a say in the

decision process. Someone else made the decisions, and the athletes are forced to oblige if they

want to keep their eligibility. Social stratification involves one party having excessive power

over the other, which is exactly what the NCAA does to athletes. In regards to the argument that
 Marshall 3

athletes receiving free tuition and that being an example of choice and freedom, it should not

be ignored that the tuition is a mere fraction of what colleges earn off of sports. Its estimated

that the 124 schools with major football teams brought in a combined $8.2 billion in athetlic

revenue in 2014 (Hruby 13). This is an enormous sum of money when it is compared to tuition

costs. For Joel Berry, who is an out of state student form Florida, OOS tuition for the 2016-2017

school year is estimated to be $33,648, paltry compared to profits in the millions. So where does

this money go? When UNC wins the championship and the ACC (friendly neighbors with the

NCAA) divies out money, where does the money go? A quick Google Search reveals that Bubba

Cunningham, UNCs Athletic Director, made over $600,000 during 2016, with a nice $50,000

raise. But this is mere pennies compared to what conferences make: during 2014-2015, the SEC

made a NCAA record $455.8 million (Hruby 13). I do not intend to investigate where and to

whom each dollar went, but rather acknowledge the massive influxes of cash the NCAA has, and

emphasize the immense power the NCAA power has over athletes. Moreover, from a pure

definitional standpoint, the NCAA and athletes are a classic example of social stratification: one

party does the work for another, and one party benefits. Indeed, only 1% of athletes go onto the

professional leagues, so is the NCAA preparing them, or just using them? The athletes sacrifice

their college experience and sometimes their college education for the head honchos who make

millions.

In regards to the argument that athletes are paid via free tuition and other benefits such as

academic coaches, access to world-class facilities, and a college experience that non-athletes will

never experience. But is this ethical? Is it ethical that these students lives are dictated by a

higher up power? Indeed, Hruby writes, the injustice in college sports isnt just about the terms

of the deal. Its about the terms of the dealing. Amateurism deprives athletes ---again,
 Marshall 4

predominantly black athletes---of freedoms and rights the rest of us take for granted (Hruby 34).

Athletes cannot form unions, cannot work outside jobs, cannot strike, and are basically second-

class citizens, which, according to former association director Byers, is exactly what the NCAA

intended. By calling athletes student athletes, universities could avoid paying for workers

compensation in the case of injury (Hruby 34). Even if student athletes are being paid via

tuition, they are still being denied the rights that non-student athletes often take for granted;

consequently, the claim that student athletes are exploited via social stratification is not out of

realms. Athletes cannot rebel against the NCAA in any way, and cannot also participate in any

activity that bashes or harms the reputation and name of the NCAA. If they do, they risk losing

their scholarship, which, for many, would be devastating, as many cannot afford school without

scholarship assistance. Even private schools are not immune to this, as the NCAA is still

involved. In some ways, the NCAA represents a repressive government, in which dissent of any

kind is grounds for dismissal. The NCAA is not a democracy, but yet claims to operate like one.

One popular ad that often circulates during March Madness is one in which it is stated that there

are almost 400,000 student athletes and almost all of them will go pro in something other than

sports. This ad is interesting for many reasons; for one, it admits that most students are not

professionals. Conversely, it seems to imply that athletes should be focusing on school first. But

the NCAA restricts this on many levels; many athletes must stay at their respective campus

during the summer, and cannot be employed or intern, which is often a requireemt for entry level

employment.
 Marshall 5

The exploitation of student athletes is a relatively new phenomenom, but one that is already

seeing resistance and hesitation from both sides of the debate. In some ways, it reminds me of

the

Relates to social stratification: one party has ecessive power over the other

2) compelling views

3) your critique/evaluation

cite readings (author, page number)