Welcome aboard, Time magazine. So glad you decided to join our little bandwagon!
I’m referring to the magazine’s recent cover story. “It’s Time to Pay College Athletes,” reads the headline, accompanied by the poster boy for the issue, Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel. Indeed it is.
Now that I think about it, the bandwagon isn’t so little anymore. More and more voices have joined the chorus calling for more equitable treatment of college football and men’s basketball players — athletes who essentially hold down full-time jobs and are expected to be big revenue producers for their schools, but whose sole compensation is a scholarship, often renewable at a coach’s whim, that may or may not lead to an education and that usually doesn’t even cover the full cost of college.
What has been especially striking to me in recent weeks is the way the Manziel case has become a tipping point. Last season, as a freshman, Manziel — whose nickname is Johnny Football — won the Heisman Trophy after leading the Aggies to an 11-2 record, which included an exciting upset of Alabama, the eventual national champion.
In early August, ESPN reported that Manziel had signed his name on some sports memorabilia in return “for a five-figure flat fee” from an autograph broker. After much Sturm und Drang, not to mention an NCAA investigation, Manziel was hand- ed a silly punishment: a half-game suspension, which he served in the Aggies’ season opener against Rice University.
The NCAA said it found no evidence that Manziel had taken any money, but it imposed the penalty because one of its rules states that players can’t sign autographs for people who are going to try to make money from their signature, even if they reap no reward themselves.
It is worth noting that as college athletes go, Manziel is not the most sympathetic of characters. Unlike many college athletes, he doesn’t need money; his father inherited an oil fortune. Last spring, he didn’t go to class on A&M’s campus but instead took all online courses. He can come across in profiles as surly, entitled and aggrieved. And his drinking is such that his coach, Kevin Sumlin, and his parents had him see an alcohol counselor.
But none of that has seemed to matter. Instead of viewing this as a case of a pampered player breaking the rules, many people saw it instead as example of how ridiculous the rules are. As Time put it, “The real question is, ‘What’s wrong with that?’” referring to a college athlete getting paid for his autograph.
“The case just seems so egregious,” said Warren Zola, an assistant dean at Boston College’s Carroll School of Management who advises athletes preparing to turn pro. “Punished for signing your own name?”
Critics of the current system, like me, often complain that everyone in the business of college sports gets rich except the players. In the case of Manziel, you can see that clearly.
After Manziel’s great season, his coach, Sumlin, got a $1.1 million raise; his salary, according to Time, now tops $3 million. The magazine came up with estimates showing that A&M’s media exposure, thanks in part to Manziel’s Heisman, is worth $37 million and that the retail value of A&M merchandise is $72 million — a 20 percent jump from the previous year.
“The general public now recognizes the fact that the money is preposterous,” Zola told me. It is this influx of money, much of it generated by television contracts, that makes the continued “amateur” status of the players so untenable.
There are, of course, voices missing from the new chorus: those of the college sports insiders, who cling to the status quo. And why wouldn’t they? But theirs is not necessarily the last word.
In Congress, a bill was recently introduced that would give players more rights, a sure sign that the issue is catching on. In the courts, lawsuits aimed at making it possible for players to earn some money from their likenesses continue to move forward. If a large enough segment of the public comes to see that, however much they love football or men’s basketball, the current state of affairs is inherently unfair, public outcry may force the necessary change.
The Time magazine cover suggests we may be getting to that point.