NCAA Tax Exemption Does Not Require “Amateurism” And Reggie Bush Ought to Get his Heisman Trophy Back
The NCAA’s tax exemption is not yet beyond saving, but it won’t be salvaged by debating the meaning of “amateurism,” which has nothing whatever to do with tax exemption. We don’t require or even allow exempt hospitals to employ and [not] pay “amateurs,” do we? University faculties unionize and engage in collective bargaining all the time. I’m not saying its a good thing that Dartmouth students who play basketball have unionized. But whether nonprofit workers unionize or not has nothing to do with tax exemption. NCAA’S tax exemption issue is more about monopsonistic power, the ruthless application of which is hardly charitable.
The NCAA famously sanctioned USC, another tax exempt entity, for Reggie Bush’s refusal to be an “amateur” in an otherwise legitimately tax-exempt activity. The NCAA went so far as to require that USC erase all name, image and likeness of Reggie for his infraction (riding around in an expensive car and providing his mama a house, basically). USC conceded, not bothering to return the millions it reaped exploiting Bush’s 4.3 speed. I hate to say it, but that’s just a white pot calling a skillet black.
Anyway, here is what The Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics & Paralympics said about amateurism a few days ago:
From the very beginnings of the global Olympic movement, which is rooted in the ideal of universal access to sports’ many benefits, the notion that the pursuit of movement sports requires a commitment to ‘amateurism’ has been used to exclude those not wealthy enough or well-connected enough to afford participation. Historically, it has been used to limit athlete eligibility and infringe on athletes’ right to earn income or access financial support in connection with their athletic training and performance. Indeed, these terms have been harnessed to punish unfairly those who did not abide by this highly limiting and exclusionary definition of ‘amateurism.’ In a notable example in 1912, Jim Thorpe—one of the most celebrated athletes in American history and the first Native American to medal for our country at the Olympics—saw his gold medals in the pentathlon and decathlon events at the Stockholm Olympics that summer invalidated by the IOC because he had briefly played professional minor-league baseball.
This misguided attitude has trickled down from the pinnacle of high-performance competition all the way to community centers and public sports fields, where our pay-to-play system keep many young Americans out of movement sports because their families cannot afford the high and rising costs. Most problematic, though, is how many of the movement-sports athletes who rise to the top of our pipeline still face hardship and added adversity within the system because they cannot afford to pursue their sports full-time as an avocation. That, however, is what a culture of ‘amateurism’ in movement sports historically has demanded, and it is what use of the term today still assumes. Continuing to refer to athletes in movement sports as ‘amateurs’ contributes to a culture where USOPC and governing bodies—and, indeed, we as a nation—may fail to appreciate fully the enormous commitment and sacrifice it takes to be a twenty-first century high-performance Olympic or Paralympic athlete. Calling them ‘amateurs’ has allowed sports officials to deny high-performance athletes basic rights, adequate financial support, and even safety protections. Indeed, calling these athletes ‘amateurs’ has imposed burdens that negatively impact their ability to focus on achieving in their sports. ‘Amateurism’ has, in many ways, limited America’s medal potential while undercutting our athletes’ potential for accessing the financial security and stability that ensures a robust athlete pipeline and protects athletes’ ability to focus on excellence in their sports.
This Commission very strongly recommends that the terms ‘amateur’ and ‘amateurism’ be fully retired from use across the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement. In addition to the compelling reasons stated above, these terms no longer have utility within sports because they do not convey any particular level or type of sport. They are merely vestiges of outdated attitudes toward athletes that no longer make sense in twenty-first century movement sports, which has now long welcomed those who previously would have been ineligible because of involvement in professional sports. Congress should set the tone by amending the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act to remove references to these terms from the statute and from the title of the legislation itself. Indeed, it should seize the opportunity to right two wrongs in the name of the Act by replacing “Amateur” with “Paralympic.” Likewise, USOPC, governing bodies, and stakeholders should cease using the terms “amateur” and “amateurism,” helping lead a broader effort to change the culture of movement sports that reflects the reality of our high-performance athletes without the historical baggage of a label implying that their dedication to the task is merely an avocation and not a full-time commitment.
Ending the use of these inaccurate—and now substantively empty—terms is but the first step. It must be matched with policy changes that reflect the same commitment to putting athletes at the center of the movement and ensuring that their rights and contributions are respected. Congress should recognize that athletes in our country, when participating in the movement sports that Congress has accepted as having a public value and requiring public oversight, hold certain fundamental rights. Rights that athletes participating in movement sports should have include: 1) the right to train, practice, and compete in a safe environment, free from abuse, harassment, or bullying; 2) the right to own and market their names, images, and likenesses; 3) the right to seek redress free from retaliation; 4) the right to timely information posted well in advance regarding national-team-selection processes within their sports and the calendar of required competition events in those selection processes; 5) the right to an affordable fee structure for participating in national-team-selection competition events; and 6) the right to a timely dispute resolution as it relates to competition and national-team selection. Congress ought to enshrine in law the basic rights athletes in the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement hold. For too long the lack of a clear delineation of these rights has been used to deny them. In addition to delineating these rights, Congress should take action to alleviate one of the most difficult burdens facing athletes: ensuring steady health-insurance coverage.
It is essential that Congress work to align health-insurance coverage for athletes in movement and collegiate sports in order to ensure that no athlete is penalized or otherwise stripped of rights or benefits when moving between these different sports contexts. Athletes representing Team USA in international competition should be given generous grace periods around competition-event timeframes with regard to health-insurance coverage. The Commission is encouraged by efforts currently underway in Congress to close NCAA loopholes regarding health-insurance coverage for sports-related injuries. If those efforts come to fruition, we urge that athletes in movement sports are included under the same protections. Maintaining two systems with different criteria for coverage eligibility, guarantees for coverage of injury-related costs, and grace periods simply does not work when many of the same individual athletes are constantly moving between the two
darryll k. jones