As newsworthy as it seemed to some, the announcement that there was a bill in the Nebraska legislature that would call for the payment in stipend form of University of Nebraska-Lincoln football players was considered nothing out of the ordinary by the NCAA.
Some members of the organization find it comical that everyone else thinks it is something different than normal.
"No we're not aware of it," Wally Renfro, senior advisor to the president of the NCAA said facetiously. "By the way, where is Nebraska?"
Renfro has worked at the NCAA for 30 years and has been there for every attempt that Nebraska state senator Ernie Chambers, the author of the latest bill, has made to have such a bill passed since he wrote his first bill regarding the issue in 1980.
The only difference with the latest bill is that the governor of Nebraska, Mike Johanns, has come out in open support of the bill. The Business and Labor Committee in Nebraska's unicameral legislature will have an executive session regarding the bill today.
If the law does pass in Nebraska, it will have to pass in three other states with schools in the Big 12 Conference before it can go into action.
If it would, both the states and the NCAA would be in a battle like none they have been in before. According to Renfro, the NCAA has never been in a situation where a state law went so directly against its bylaws.
"It's way too early to speculate on what would happen if this would pass," he said. "But it would obviously create some issues."
According to Renfro, the NCAA's objection to the bill is the same now as it was then, one that is based on both the ideals of the NCAA and the practical implications such a bill would have. He reiterated the long-standing NCAA maxim about maintaining the integrity of student athletics and making the sure that college athletics do not become a "third-rate professional league." He also talked about the questions that would have to be answered if such a bill would pass, and the amount of money that would be necessary to carry out such an action.
"In the end, would you end up paying all student athletes?" Renfro asked. "If you would pay every student athlete in the country $50 a week, that would come out to something like $700 million a year. Even if you dedicated the entire television package with CBS, which is $450 million, to paying them, you'd still have to find another $250 million."
Renfro said that only 30 universities in the NCAA were profiting from their athletic programs, and that allowing those big schools to pay their players would destroy any competitive balance between those schools and smaller schools.
He also said that the NCAA sees encouraging participation by many athletes in many sports as the goal of its organization. He said that forcing athletic departments to pay their athletes in football and men's basketball, the intercollegiate sports that make the most money, would likely force them to eliminate non-revenue sports. Most of those attain most of their funding from the profits made by the two high-revenue sports.
According to Renfro, instead of just paying every student athlete or every football player equally, the NCAA has made strides to allow players to be provided with funds that are closer to the total cost of attendance than just the cost of education. Players whose families are in serious financial binds can apply for a Pell Grant, which pays up to $3,000 a year. Those that get Pell Grants can attain up to $500 a semester from an assistance fund for emergency items.
Though the NCAA does not allow players to work during the season they can earn up to $2,000 during semesters in which their sport is not in session. There is no limit on how much they can make during vacations.
Renfro also rejected the notion that the players are not at all compensated for their efforts.
"Student athletes are getting the value of a full scholarship and other academic resources," he said. "They're also getting some of the best athletic training, and the exposure they're getting to the world is unmatched anywhere else."
