Sport if you powerpoint

timer Asked: Apr 20th, 2021

Question Description

Hi i need you to do this small part of the PowerPoint that i'm doing with my classmate the part that you doing is ""You can do Recommendation on what we think is best and why?""

like Just talk about like from our research and from what Dom said what you would think is the best policy for the ncaa obviously paying students in some way it should be about 7-8 slides long with pic and data stat

Unformatted Attachment Preview

TSTD 4101 Section 10 Group 5 Due Dates: April 20 - Oral Presentations - Collegiate Athlete Compensation Lit Review - Collegiate Athlete Compensation Five Experts - Final Paper Due Sky’s Articles 1. Foul! The exploitation of the student-athlete: Student-athletes … Haden, Christopher W Journal of Law and Education; 2. Pay for play: the financial value of NCAA football players Richard Borghesi Applied Economics Benita’s Articles 1. Flag on the Play: How the NCAA’s Principle of Amateurism Allows for the Exploitation of College Athletes and How It Should Implement Players’ Name, Image, and Likeness Policy...Gabriella Beech 2. There is no nil in NIL: Examining the social media value of student-athletes names, images, and likeness. Kunkel, Baker, Doyle Evan’s Articles 1. Sanderson, Allen R., and John J. Siegfried. “The Case for Paying College Athletes.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 29, no. 1, 2015, pp. 115–137. JSTOR, Accessed 11 Mar. 2021. 2. Purdy, Dean A., et al. “Are Athletes Also Students? The Educational Attainment of College Athletes.” Social Problems, vol. 29, no. 4, 1982, pp. 439–448. JSTOR, Accessed 11 Mar. 2021. Sarah’s Articles 1. McLeran, M. S. (2017). Playing for Peanuts: Determining Fair Compensation for NCAA Student-Athletes. Drake L. Rev., 65, 255. 2. Fortier, S., & Thacker, D. (2017). Amateurism vs. Capitalism: A Practical Approach to Paying College Athletes. Seattle Journal of Social Justice, 16(1), 183-216. Domenic’s Articles 1. “Show me the Money!” - Analyzing the Potential State Tax Implications of Paying Student-Atheltes… Katheryn Kisska-Schulze & Adam Epstein he_Money-_Analyzing_the_Potential_State_Tax_Implications_of_Paying_Student- Athletes/links/5460f5920cf295b561638268/Show-Me-the-Money-Analyzing-thePotential-State-Tax-Implications-of-Paying-Student-Athletes.pdf 2. “PLAYING FOR PEANUTS: DETERMINING FAIR COMPENSATION FOR NCAA STUDENT-ATHLETES” Michael S. McLeran 265&men_tab=srchresults Other Sources 1. 2. 3. 4. Literature Review First Source: Flag on the Play: How the NCAA’s Principle of Amateurism Allows for the Exploitation of College Athletes and How It Should Implement Players’ Name, Image, and Likeness Policy...Gabriella Beech This article describes the legislation and legal cases that have led to questioning the NCAA’s amateurism rules. By providing background information as to why the amateurism laws should be questioned supplies a good understanding of the stance for our case -- that NCAA players should be compensated for their name, image, and likeness. The paper argues that the NCAA does not practice what it preaches in regards to amateurism. According to the NCAA, college athletes are motivated primarily by education and the physical, mental and social benefits. At the same time, the NCAA must protect said athletes from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises. This statement is contradictory; the average athlete spends 43.4 hours per week on athletics and 37.3 hours per week on academics. Additionally, high revenue sports such as football and basketball provide large sums of revenue for their schools, and it is due to the NIL of their athletes. However, the athletes can’t profit from their NIL because they have signed their rights away most of the time in unconscionable contracts, which means the athletes get little choice due to the way recruiting works and the way the system is set up for collegiate athletes to get offers. Usually, these contracts are signed on the athletes signing day, and many times athletes are 17 years old, just excited to play at the NCAA level, not understanding what they are giving up. O’Bannon argues the NCAA is, “ purposefully misleading, incomplete and ambiguous on its face, and student-athletes, including minors, must sign it under duress and without informed consent.” One critical case highlighted was the O’Bannon, vs. NCAA where a federal court determined the NCAA was in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the first time they were mandated to change their rules. In Bloom v. NCAA, a college athlete argued that his endorsement of products was necessary for his professional skiing career due to the cost of the equipment. The court replied that the NCAA values amateurism so highly that the NCAA must function; therefore, Bloom was denied his request. Another case, Hart v. Electronic Arts, was brought up by a Rutgers football player that argued his likeness was used in a video game, violating his right to publicity. However, due to NCAA amateurism bylaws, all of this was legal, as long as video game producers don’t include the specific name of the college athlete. In White v. NCAA, athletes argued that the financial aid cap, their scholarships did not cover their full cost of attendance which was an unlawful restraint of competition in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The NCAA settled the suit for 10 million and provided 218 million for 2008-2013 college athletes in financial or academic need. This case was pivotal since it was a settlement the NCAA did not admit to any wrongdoing so the gap between the amount of scholarship offered and the actual cost of attendance remains today. Second Source: There is no nil in NIL: Examining the social media value of student-athletes names, images, and likeness. Kunkel, Baker, Doyle This paper is studied in two parts. The first study analyzes the social media profiles of male collegiate athletes from football and basketball in relation to their NIL value. The second study analyses profiles of all student-athletes of two top-tier and two mid-tier universities. By applying influencer marketing industry-standard rates, the results show that students had NIL value before college, but the institution further expands the value. The paper argues that NIL value extends beyond the scope of revenue for the university’s athletic program and provides athletes to generate revenue beyond field performance. For example, former Alabama quarterback Tua Tagovailoa could earn over $25,0000 per sponsored Instagram post if NCAA bylaws were amended to support the monetization of athletes NIL. From Study one, account evaluations were made with the assumption that each athlete would have 52 sponsored posts per year at a specified CPM rate. The CPM rate is the monetary equivalent of the cost to reach 1000 people. Results showed that an athlete with 10,000 followers and a CPM of $10.14 would have an annual social media account value of $5,273, with 50,0000 followers a value of $26,364 and with 100,000 followers have a value of $52,728. For Study Two, the highest-paid male social media collegiate athlete account would be Trevor Lawrence’s Instagram, with an annual value of $331.272. Stanford basketball player, Dijonai Carrington would be the highest female Instagram account with an annual value of $125,955. Likewise for Twitter, the highest male had an annual value of $27,919 and the highest female account amounted to $7,647. All these valuations are dependent on whether the athlete has an Instagram or Twitter account, and higher revenue is proportional to the number of followers each account has as well. Additionally, gaps between male and female athletes’ pay are a factor that has ties in the foundation of the difference in the standard for both groups of athletes and how they are viewed in the media. This article is relevant to our study because it explains how student ahletes can monetize from their NIL if they are given the opportunity to do so. Although, there are gaps those are institutionalized differences that are further exacerbated by the NCAA valuing men’s sports over women. Third Source: Sandersed 11 Mar. 2021.son, Allen R., and John J. Siegfried. “The Case for Paying College Athletes.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 29, no. 1, 2015, pp. 115– 137. JSTOR, Acces This paper makes the argument about why the change in NIL legislation is inevitable but also analyzes mostly the reasons that it is not possible for universities to pay players as employees of the Universities. Despite popular belief, college athletics as a whole are not profitable for the university. For the approximately 350 universities playing Division 1 college basketball and the 126 playing FBS football, these programs generate substantial revenue through ticket sales and television broadcast rights, but this revenue most often is not enough to cover the loss that the university takes on fielding non-revenue generating sports. There are exceptions to this, like the University of Texas. The University of Texas is a prominent example of a school where athletics generates a profit: in 2013, Texas earned about $20 million on sports revenues, but on average, funds flow in the opposite direction “According to a Knight Commission (2006) survey, 78 percent of Americans believe intercollegiate athletics is profitable. NCAA data, however, indicate that only 20 of the 126 Football Bowl Subdivision universities earned an operating surplus on intercollegiate athletics in 2013 (Fulks 2014, p. 13), a typical year, and only a portion of those profits were transferred to the academic side of their universities.” There are really only three ways for universities to even justify spending money to try and improve their sports programs and that is because it may attract more government funding, more private donations, and increase enrollment. Successful sports programs usually see an increase in all three of these and are able to justify the continued “doubling down” on underperforming athletic programs. Because of the reasons above the paper argues that it is impossible for college athletes to ever become employees of the school because any added cost to these programs would cause the athletic departments to begin shutting down sports that are not profitable and eventually all sports programs. The only solution offered is that the NCAA needs to get ahead of the issue and find and regulate a way for athletes to profit off the field without taking any revenue away from the schools. Fourth Source: Purdy, Dean A., et al. “Are Athletes Also Students? The Educational Attainment of College Athletes.” Social Problems, vol. 29, no. 4, 1982, pp. 439–448. JSTOR, Accessed 11 Mar. 2021. This study was an analysis of the academic performance and mental health of student-athletes. The purpose of the study is to provide the support that student-athletes are not actually given the opportunity to be students. This would completely discredit the argument that college athletes are being rewarded with an education because they are not receiving the same academic support as normal students. The study found that participants in minor sports are achieving academically at about the equivalent of normal students, but those in the major sports of football and basketball achieve at a far lower level than the average student because of factors related to the time commitment to their sport. In addition to the underperformance academically the study also found that the mental health of athletes was significantly worse than that of normal students due to the additional pressure of performing on the field in order to maintain academic eligibility and the additional time commitment needed to keep their performance up. The study is important to the NIL argument because a major counterargument to proponents of allowing student-athletes to be paid is that they are compensated with an education, but if their education is hindered by their athletic performance then they must receive something to make up for the increased challenges and obstacles to their academic achievements. Fifth Source: “Show me the Money!” - Analyzing the Potential State Tax Implications of Paying Student-Athletes… Katheryn Kisska-Schulze & Adam Epstein This article is very interesting opening up about real life examples of college football players who voiced their own opinion and scenarios of which they have been trying to make a change. Chris Beck, back in 2013, was a college football athlete who was blogging on the internet while playing about why college athletes should be getting paid. This caught the attention of many newscasts and broadcasters to bring up the topic and start conversing about the pros and cons of this. Beck was talking about the issues that Johnny Manziel, who was a QB sophomore at the time for Texas A&M coming off a heisman award winning season and benched for the first half of 2013 opener for collecting money from brokers for autographs which is illegal in college sports. Beck feels that college-athletes should be getting paid as employees just because of the benefits the university reaps from having certain student-athletes on their rosters which can make the school a lot more popular and increase all of their sports and education programs in the near future from having a couple of big-time college athletes. Not even six months after this happened, Northwestern University Football players were to be considered employees of the university since Chicago passed a law of the National Labor Relations Board said they can unionize and bargain collectively. This became a big issue with the NCAA because state laws don't apply to NCAA unless it goes through college sports as well to abide by their rules. The College Athletics Association did not like this law since their big argument was college athletes can get paid by receiving scholarship money to get an education while still playing a sport. Amidst the whole pay to play model for college athletes, no state court cases were in support of this move and kept the NCAA non-payable to student-athletes. This would change college sports forever and the college athletes should be getting paid from state income tax. The impact on college sports would drastically change not only players and coaches' perspectives, but universities' perspectives as well because there are many factors that go into this. NCAA March Madness brings in over 800 million dollars per year just from the tournament in TV rights which raises the question of where all this money is going to and that they definitely generate enough revenue to pay college athletes. Tax related issues have been around in sports for a very long time and are nothing new. Tax implications can determine where a professional team will build their stadium or buy a team since taxes can be a lot higher in different states or cities. This is where the college athletes would be getting paid from state income tax especially from all of the high tuition that the university is getting from each student since the yearly educational prices continue to grow every year. Sixth Source: “PLAYING FOR PEANUTS: DETERMINING FAIR COMPENSATION FOR NCAA STUDENT-ATHLETES” Michael S. McLeran This article exemplifies how college athletes put in all this hard work, blood sweat and tears and after their four years they have focused so much on their athletic career, many athletes don’t care about academics enough and don’t have a plan after they are done playing sports. This starts with the NCAA not giving the student-athletes any credit for their publicity and antitrust claims of using their image and likeness to promote the NCAA business revenue. The first big case of a student-athlete going after the NCAA compensation rights was the Haelan Laboratories vs. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc. This case brought up the first time a student-athlete felt their right of publicity was violated over their right of privacy. Third parties cannot create NIL without getting the person’s permission and making a profit off selling merchandise or advertising the persons NIL which was happening all throughout the NCAA. The Transformation Use Test first came into talks when a student-athlete was featured in a EA Sports video game without their permission and it violated their First Amendment rights. This was the Comedy III products, Inc. vs. Gary Saderup, Inc. These video games were purposely made as realistic as possible with the college athletes in the games so people can play with them, but EA Sports did not think about the legal permission they needed from each person to use their figure like a replica in the game without giving them any type of revenue or contract. EA Sports used the college athletes real names and NIL to get as close calculations to the video game figure as possible. Right before releasing the game to the public, EA Sports figured they couldn’t get in any trouble if they used random names and hometowns so the athletes couldn’t try to say that their personal figure was in the game even though the height and weight was the exact same of the players along with looks. The courts decided that the games were just a reproduction of the student-athletes NIL and could not be sold anymore so they discontinued the games. NCAA did not allow names on the back of jerseys to be sold as merchandise revenue because of the NIL First Amendment protection. After that, NCAA started doing studies on how much a player's NIL is worth and they came up with a Louisville Basketball Player that has a market value of more than $1.5 million from expected revenues. They also found that the average University of Texas football player has a value of $564,000. The college athletic market is around a $11 billion dollar broadcasting market and a $4.6 billion dollar licensing market. This goes to show that college athletes should be getting paid from all of the revenue being made in the NCAA that does not go to any of the players as the revenue is being made from their performances on and off the field. College Athletes also have the First Amendment right which is the freedom of expression and Seventh Source: : McLeran, M. S. (2017). Playing for Peanuts: Determining Fair Compensation for NCAA Student-Athletes. Drake L. Rev., 65, 255. This article was a research on the negative and unfair nature and gratitude by NCAA towards its athletes. According to the authors, after their athletic experiences in college are over, studentathletes leave the field and into the remainder of their lives. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rewards them with year-to-year opportunities and a professional experience oriented more toward sports than academics in exchange for their sweat, tears, and blood. The NCAA has established a commercial organization in order to reduce student-athlete payment while increasing overall revenue. The article suggests that student-athletes should file right of publicity, image and antitrust lawsuits to protect their interests. If effective, the NCAA's existing payout restrictions would be replaced by less stringent alternatives imposed by the courts. The article also describes the financial value of student athletes. To prove this, the article mentions according to the authors' surveys that a basketball player in college at Louisville University is valued more than $1.4 million, and a footballer at the University of Texas is valued at $563,000.98. In addition, the application of NILs by student-athletes has generated more than $4.5 billion university licensure market and a $12 billion college athletics advertising market. As a result, it is evident that the NILs of student-athletes add to the financial advantage of the NCAA's businesses. The study conclude by mentioning that the NCAA's student-athlete policy and Division I guide infringe on the privilege to exposure of student-athletes and enforce unfair competition constraints. The NCAA's revenue from student athletes' efforts should be allocated in a way that preserves amateurism while not abusing the athletes. The protracted scholarships and proportion of total trust fund do this by rejecting a "pay for play" system but rather upholding amateurism's values, as well as emphasizing learning and combining education and athletics. The study offers a guide insight in the nature by which NCAA’s rules and policies undermines college athlete’s efforts that do not reflect in their payment. The NCAA might mention that the scholarships given around measures the general worth of each player in the modern athletics world, but that is not true. Eight Source: Fortier, S., & Thacker, D. (2017). Amateurism vs. Capitalism: A Practical Approach to Paying College Athletes. Seattle Journal of Social Justice, 16(1), 183-216. As per this study, most college athletes are thrown into the public spotlight, while their schools profit from the athletes' athletic abilities. Student athletes have similar sporting commitments to pro athletes, but they also have the added responsibility of obtaining college credit in order to stay qualified and obtain a degree. It used to happen that a college athlete might go out and look for a job in the off-season. The study mentions that going to play a Division I game has become a full-time job that requires every athlete to devote for the entire year. Amid this dedication, only 44 of the 18,684 men's NBA players in the NCAA are selected and compensated for the NBA entry draft. The selection leaves thousands of other players fighting for their livelihood both in college and back at home. The authors in this study stresses on the fact that unfair compensation exists and is affecting the determination of college athletes to perform in academic areas, where they are exerted pressure on by their presiding schools. The study also mentions that a percentage-based trust fund system will encourage schools to sell goods while respecting the privilege of student athletes to privacy and maintaining a fair competition between universities. Since the compensation of student athletes is linked to the university's income, the percentage-based trust fund is accessible for all universities. If a studentagreed athlete's salary is better as his or her current market value, for instance, it would have no impact on the school's capacity to afford student-athletes because customers will be less likely to buy goods with that student-Zero. The study concludes that the NCAA's abuse of college athletes, as well as the widespread financial burdens that players face around the country, request that something be done. It is common for change to take time. The two-prong approach, on the other hand, can be introduced without requiring major changes. Finally, college athletes and people must band together to petition Congress to change the NCAA's amateurism law so that college players can start earning income for the utilization of their NIL and apply for FWS. Annexation can be achieved by engaging in Ramogi Huma and the NCPA in lobbying the congressional leaders and other legislators for a reasonable change. Ninth Source: Pay for play: the financial value of NCAA football players Richard Borghesi Applied Economics The article first talks about the Ed O’bannon case and gets into the discussion of having student athletes become employees of the universities they attend. The reasoning that the article gives as to why the players should be employees is because of the giant time commitment that must be made to their sport. The NCAA has a 20 hour per week limit, but surveys have shown that college football players spend 40+ hours per week on athletic activities during the season and sometimes even more during the offseason. The study in the article focuses on the value of a college football player based on the expenses that a school must take on in order to land a prospect of a certain level. The skill of the recruit in the data is determined by the star rating given by The study done in the article proved that the contribution of athletes to university revenues far exceeds the value of an athletic scholarship given to the student athlete.Through data driven research they were able to find the “contributions of players to football revenue and find that if an industry-standard revenue sharing agreement were implemented, five-, four-, three-, and lowstar players would receive scholarships plus cash wages of $799,000, $361,000, $29,000, and $21,000, respectively. Results also suggest that each top-tier recruit generates an additional $1.37M in university donations.” The study found that the majority of the expenses for recruiting are going to the most elite recruits and that there is little cost in recruiting lower star players. The big conclusion that is important to the NIL argument is that the total revenue (revenue generated by the player minus expenses of recruiting) is still significantly more than the value of the scholarship given to the student athlete. This statistic combined with the fact that college athletes are working 40+ hours a week at their sport represent an unequal tradeoff between employee and employer and is the reason that student athletes need to be considered employees of their universities. Tenth Source: Foul! The exploitation of the student-athlete: Student-athletes … Haden, Christopher W Journal of Law and Education; The article first looks at some precedent cases and history that is relevant to the “pay for play” argument that is so prevalent in college athletics. The article first describes what it would look like to see athletes as employees of the university and the types of issues that are associated with this. The main issues that arise when looking at a “pay for play” structure that treats college athletes as employees are workers compensation laws, tax laws, and Title IX. Firstly, workers compensation laws are often involved when defining an employee and there are numerous workers compensation cases that the court has found no employer/employee relationship between universities and student athletes. This places a burden on legally defining the student athlete as an employee. Another hurdle in the argument for “pay to play” is the issues that would be caused with the taxation of both athletes and the university. While the student athletes are “students” both the university and them are exempt from certain taxes that they would not be if considered “employees”. If these athletes became employees the university would be forced to begin paying taxes on the tuition and other associated scholarships given to the players. In addition, an entire new discussion on Title IX would arise from the fact that most universities offer more athletics programs for men than they do for women and surely under Title IX there would need to be equal payment to women as there is to men. The solution that the article offers they call “Laundry money”. This would be additional payments made to players through their scholarships that would cover extra costs associated with being a student at a university such as, laundry, social events, travel to and from home. Laundry money could be a way for college athletes to receive cash payments while avoiding all of the problems listed above. Five Experts First Expert: Name: Nicole Fougerousse Job Title: Division 1 Softball Pitching Coach at Indiana State University Work Affiliation: Owner of NF Softball Performance with a Specialized Coaching Program and Mental Health Advocacy Program Contact:, Bio: Nicole Fougerousse grew up playing softball. She fell in love with the sport from an early age, becoming a high school pitching star receiving numerous accolades. She then went on to Indiana State University, where she would encounter back-to-back knee injuries, thus ending her collegiate career short of what she had hoped for. Unsure of what she wanted to do after her playing career ended due to unforeseen circumstances, she decided she would continue with softball in her life and start coaching. During her junior year at ISU, she started the first-ever non-profit softbal travel organization for Greene County, Indiana, where she coached for six years. She built the program from the youth level and inspired hundreds of kids to continue with softball. She moved on to coach at the high school level for a couple more years before deciding to complete her Masters’s in Sports Psychology while serving as the pitching coach for Tennesse State University. After completing her Masters, she opened up her own softball company, which focused on athlete physical and mental health development. While running her business, she took up her current position back at her alma mater serving as the pitching coach at ISU. Fougerousse continues to advocate for athletes’ mental and physical health daily and would advocate for the compensation of NCAA athletes. Second Expert: Name: Sam Fortier Job Title: Washington Post report writer Work Affiliation: The Washington Post Magazine Contact: Bio: Sam Fortier is a Washington Post report writer who covers the NFL team. He extensively shared the Washington Nationals' World Series victory and the Los Angeles Chargers for the Athletic before entering The Post in April 2019. Fortier grew up in Strafford, New Hampshire. He studied at Syracuse University, B.S. in magazine journalism. Sam Fortier is a writer in matters to do with sports. In the Washington Post, he has been mentioning that college athletes have been experiencing unfair economic output in their efforts to be athletes in their schools. Sam Fortier is acting as an activist campaigning for those against the compensation to allow college students to learn something from the effort they are inserting in a college athlete. Sam has had many editorial achievements including being in the light of the fight against unfair athlete treaties within college sports. He currently talks about compensation as one of the big issues facing the NFL. As a writer in most social media and the Washington Post, Sam has managed to get attention from many organizations such as NCAA who have made other human rights agencies visit the Supreme Court to argue the case. Currently, the case is with the Supreme Court, which is arguing as to whether college athletes should be compensated. Third Expert: Name: Ramogi Huma Job Title: Executive Director of National College Players Association. Founder and President of the College Athletes Players Association Work Affiliation: Contact: 951-898-0985 Bio: Ramogi Huma, a former UCLA football player, began advocating for student athletes after a teammate was suspended from a game after he was given groceries when he had no food. He founded the student group that eventually evolved into the National College Players Association a non profit advocacy group. Huma along with other members of the NCPA have fought for college athlete rights by speaking to media groups, sitting in on hearings of law makers, and petitioning college presidents. Some monumental wins for the NCPA was the elimination of the NCAA's cap on player medical expenses, $10 million fund for degree completion and safety rules during workouts. Huma himself has testified to the US congress and has shown his support for the The Students Athletes Bill of Rights in California. He has also co-authored several articles such as The $6 Billion Heist: Robbing College Athletes Under the Guise of Amateurism, a study that showed the value of NCAA players. The study estimated that NCC denied athletes around $6 billion of their fair market value between 2011-15. His advocacy for college athletes is truly unmatched and as a former player he knows personally that college athletes need to be treated and paid fairly. Fourth Expert: Name: Maurice Clarrett Job Title: Author and former standout running back at Ohio State and professional football player in the UFL. Contact: : / 800-916-6008 Bio: Maurice Clarett is chosen because after his time at Ohio State he is known as an avid public speaker and author on the topic of his life as a college athlete and life after football. Most recently he has served as an expert to congressional panels on NIL where he continues to advocate for student-athlete rights Fifth Expert: Name: Tim Nevius Job Title: Founder of College Athlete Advocacy Initiative and Former College Baseball Athlete at University of Dayton Work Affiliation: Contact: (212) 767-9229 Bio: Tim graduated from first in his class from University of Dayton in law school. He immediately joined the NCAA investigation team and was working with some of the biggest cases of college athletes across the country first year out of college. Tim knows exactly what it's like for these college athletes going through these issues because he was a D-1 baseball player himself so he already has the connection to these student-athletes. Tim’s first five years out of college he was dealing with scholarship reductions, transfer cases, eligibility issues, and drug appeals. He then got his L.L.M from Columbia Law School and moved to New York to work with Winston and Strawn. Tim has recently founded the College Athlete Advocacy Initiative which deals with problems that student-athletes have to face in multiple cases to help them come to a reform and solution. Tim is also a guest speaker at colleges and universities as well as teaching a sports law course as an adjunct professor. Tim’s biggest vision is fighting for his fellow college-athletes and to do what is right on how they are not being treated fairly along with speaking for those who do not have a voice. The Case for Paying Collegiate Athletes Group 5: Benita Lukose, Azzura-Sky Riley, Domenic Boselli, Evan Oaks, Rayan Alolayan History of the NCAA ● Established by President Teddy Roosevelt ● 62 colleges and universities when first established ● Football rules organization ● First NCAA championship played in 1952 ● Walter Byers - first executive director NCAA Today ● 1,268 institutions in North America regulated by the NCAA ● 24 sports ● 480,000 student athletes ● 90 championships ● $1.1 billion in revenue ● $3.5 billion in scholarships Revenue Breakdown Legal issues
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!

Related Tags

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors