A Victory for Student Athletes

     In light of our recent studies surrounding the exploitation of student athletes, has anyone else read this article yet?  I found it last night after I was notified of the court decision via ESPN mobile.  For those who haven't seen it yet, a federal judge ruled that the NCAA cannot stop players from selling the rights to their names and other related images - meaning that college athletes are now legally eligible to earn up to $5,000 a year as mandated by the ruling (around $20,000 total over their college careers) in addition to their scholarships and/or tuition reimbursements.  As a result, the NCAA can no longer fully exploit players despite the billions of dollars they have earned for the organization over the course of its history.  As expected, the NCAA disagrees, citing "amateurism" as justification for not paying players.
     Personally, I believe that this is a major victory for student athletes across the nation.  The money they earn for the public sales of their names will be placed into a trust fund after graduation, which I think is a huge step in terms of preparing student athletes for life after college.  As the article details, many athletes testified during the trial that they viewed sports as their main occupation in college, and that the time they dedicated to their training made it nearly impossible to function as a normal student as well.  Former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon, the lead plaintiff in the case, explicitly stated that, "[He] was an athlete masquerading as a student…[and] was there strictly to play basketball. [He] did basically the minimum to make sure [he] kept [his] eligibility academically so [he] could continue to play."  Although the NCAA argued that the often free education that many student athletes receive is more than enough compensation, I think players like O'Bannon exemplify exactly why it is not.  These "student" athletes are expected to perform at such a high level as representatives of their universities that they have very little time to focus on actually obtaining an education, which in turn can potentially create bad situations for them after their collegiate playing days are over.  While I don't necessarily agree with this practice, I can easily understand how it occurs.  Anyone who has ever attempted to do anything outside of school can understand how stressful managing multiple commitments during the semester can be, much less at the level that Division I athletics demands.  It is possible to argue that athletes make these choices for themselves, but the amount of revenue that they generate for the NCAA each year (in addition to that for their respective school's athletic departments) is more than enough to fund some sort of safety net for these athletes.  By creating limited trust funds (we are talking thousands of dollars here, not lucrative figures) that athletes will only receive after graduation, I think that this ruling will significantly aid student athletes in their post-NCAA lives for generations to come.