Exploitation in college sports: Race, revenue, and educational reward

Abstract

The question of whether college athletes are exploited is regularly debated in the popular press and academic literature about college sports. The concept of exploitation, with its philosophical and psychological implications, however, is rarely discussed in detail. This paper problematizes and expands the way in which the concept has been presented within the context of college sports, arguing that exploitation is primarily a moral construct understood as an unfair exchange between two parties. For college athletes, an unfair financial exchange can be measured by comparing the surplus value and marginal revenue product. These calculations may evidence the degree of economic exploitation, but many people still believe college athletes are fairly compensated with a subsistence wage in the form of an athletic scholarship. It is more difficult to quantify the promise or value of an education above and beyond this subsistence wage, most often defined as a college degree. The over-representation of Black college athletes on revenue-producing teams, and the corresponding lower graduation rates of this population when compared to other students, highlight the racial and cultural divisions of opportunity. Institutions face a crisis of conscience when educational opportunities are offered to certain students based primarily on their athletic ability, especially when these opportunities are perceived as disingenuous due to the academic preparation and demanding athletic commitments of these recruited college athletes.

International Olympic Committee consensus statement: harassment and abuse (non-accidental violence) in sport

“…‘Safe sport’ (see box 1) should be appropriately incorporated as a core element of a robust business model in sport or good governance227 with advocacy essential from the top down in every sport organisation. Structural changes that share power and decision-making with athletes—institutionally, organisationally and personally—are important steps towards risk mitigation 180…”

Disciplinary Power, the Oligopticon and Rhizomatic Surveillance in Elite Sports Academies

“…The fundamental role of elite football academies is to 'develop players for the first team or (at least) generate income through the sale of "marketable assets"' (Stratton et al 2004: 201). A definition of such institutions highlights the reproduction of dominant capitalist social relations (Brohm 1978) and the exploitation of athletes as commodities that is often associated with, and endemic to, modern forms of professional and commercialised sport (Thorpe 2004;Van Rheenen 2012). Parker (1995) indicates that youth football has progressed from its informal beginnings to a more regulated, systematic and standardised practice.…”

Disciplinary mechanisms and the discourse of identity: The creation of ‘silence’ in an elite sports academy

“…A definition of such institutions highlights the reproduction of dominant capitalist social relations and the exploitation of athletes as commodities that are often associated with, and endemic to, modern forms of professional and commercialised sport (Brohm 1978;Thorpe 2004;Van Rheenen 2012). As such, the athlete bodies, and their skill sets, are valorized according to economic worth solidifying their organisational position within such environments (Nesti et al 2012).…”