Academic journal article Journal of Law and Education

Counterpoint-Introduction: Intercollegiate Athletics: Who Is "Exploiting" Whom?

Academic journal article Journal of Law and Education

Counterpoint-Introduction: Intercollegiate Athletics: Who Is "Exploiting" Whom?

Article excerpt

In the October 2001 issue of the JouRNAL, law student Christopher Haden first summarized the policy arguments and case law for and against the proposals that student-athletes receive what is commonly called "pay for play."1 Haden then selected one proposal that, in his judgment, properly considers the interests of the individual student-athletes and the legal obstacles to other forms of compensation. More specifically, after his analysis of the conflicting case law in the context of workers' compensation, where the issue is whether the studentathlete is an employee,2 and identification of the legal obstacles purportedly associated with paying student-athletes a wage-like fixed stipend, e.g. taxation-- exemption, Title IX, and antitrust issues, Haden adopted Hurst's and Pressly's solution: A "laundry money" expansion of the athletic scholarship at Division I institutions of higher education.3 However, Haden suggests an increase in the proposed amount of $30-$50 to $100 per month.4 He argues such an enhancement of the scholarship package would provide the student-athlete with sufficient funds to address routine necessities of life and would not invoke costly obligations like paying workers' compensation, losing tax-exemption, providing Title IX proportionality, and committing antitrust violations.5

In the accompanying Counterpoint, professors Michael Mondello and Joseph Beckham of football power Florida State University broadly attack play-for-pay proposals, including Haden's modified laundry-money solution.6 IMAGE FORMULA2

Their first line of attack is that the majority view of the pertinent workers' compensation court decisions disfavors the status of student-athletes as employees.7 Yet, Haden acknowledged this view8 and expressly incorporated it in his solution.9

Second, Mondello and Beckham advance the federal tax exemption, Title IX, and antitrust obstacles, but, again, Haden's modified proposal takes such impediments into account. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.