Paying it Forward, A Potential Drawback for SC Athletes

COLUMBIA, S.C. - The South Carolina General Assembly is reviewing a bill this week that is making waves in college athletics. The bill, prefiled in December, would require Clemson and USC to provide a trust fund to its student-athletes, money that would be available to them only after they graduate and pass a financial literacy test. Senator Marlon Kimpson of Charleston (D) introduced the bill and this week held a hearing with representatives from both USC and Clemson. Kimpson said the goal of the bill is to “have student athletes participate in some of the revenue they generate on behalf of the university and therefore, improve the academic and quality of life status for student- athletes.” Controversy surrounds this proposal as some believe the bill would require students to violate the NCAA’s amateurism policy. The policy prohibits students from receiving “salary for participating in athletics.” Violation of this policy makes students ineligible for play in NCAA sanctioned competitions. While risky, Kimpson believes the climate is right for a change of mindset in regard to paying student-athletes. The senator cites that USC President Harris Pastides is part of the leadership of the Power Five conferences, the organization setting new rules and regulations for collegiate athletics. USC and Clemson are both Power Five schools because of their affiliations with the Southeastern Conference and the Atlantic Coast Conference. Earlier this year the Power Five voted to increase the cost of attendance at events, an idea that was previously considered a violation by the NCAA. For this reason, Kimpson believes the time is now to act on paying student-athletes. “The NCAA’s position was that they were not supportive of the cost of attendance increase but the Power Five, under the leadership of Dr. Pastides, increased the cost of attendance. When they did that there was a recognition that the revenues are significantly increasing and the students need to be beneficiaries of those increases.” Kimpson is confident that there is room for changes to be made but some students are skeptical about potential fallout. USC Senior Ave Dowell said she is possibly in favor of paying student-athletes but not at the expense of their eligibility. "Most students do have paid internships so maybe something like that." Dowell fears that this bill could potentially cause problems for teams performing well in post season play, such as USC's Womens basketball team. For now the bill resides in the senate’s education committee and Sen. Kimpson plans to hold more hearings in the coming weeks and months. IN MY OPINION: Paying student-athletes is in the near future. That isn’t debatable to me. The general consensus of the public seems to be that student-athletes don't need to be paid. I couldn't disagree more. In 2014 USC and Clemson combined to make nearly $41 million in ticket sales alone. Neither school’s student-athletes saw monetary benefits of those sales. Yes, some of these students do receive free educations at top universities. However, the cost of their academic pursuits is vastly overshadowed by the profits made by institutions across the NCAA. Again, paying student-athletes is in the near future. The question that lingers on my mind: How we are going to get there? I think this bill is a step in the right direction because it opens a more public dialogue. In recent years the NCAA has been unwavering in their interpretation of amateurism. Beyond the fiscal benefits for student-athletes, this bill would begin to force the NCAA’s hand. Both USC and Clemson boast extremely successful athletic programs that are year-round contenders for top NCAA titles. How could the NCAA defend not allowing a Final Four team to compete because their university is bound by state law? The potential for incredible progress is here. I worry that the idea of keeping the money from athletes until graduation can become limiting to their futures which is the exact opposite of it’s purpose. While the majority of student- athletes will not continue on a field of play past their collegiate careers, there are some who have potential and likelihood to be successful at the next level. In select cases, that may be before completing their degree program. Under those circumstances, is it penalizing to keep these funds from them if they decide to pursue a professional athletic career? I love the fact that this discussion is finally happening and I applaud Sen. Kimpson for taking these steps. The legislative advocacy for South Carolina’s student-athletes is long overdue. However in my opinion, I’m not sold that this is the way to do it.