NCAA Compares Students To Slaves As Reason To Not Pay Student-Athletes

NCAA Compares Students To Slaves As Reason To Not Pay Student-Athletes

NCAA Compares Students To Slaves As Reason To Not Pay Student-Athletes

Source: IAML

The NCAA cited a court case that relied on a loophole in the 13th Amendment as justification for not paying student-athletes for their abilities.

Now, we all know that the NCAA is a ripoff job, as they’ve made billions upon billions of dollars in ticket sales, merchandise, TV deals and video games off of the backs of its student-athletes. It’s no secret and it is something that dreadfully needs to change. So, when the NCAA had to argue why student-athletes aren’t legally entitled to compensation, can we really be surprised that they would rely on the 13th Amendment as a legal justification?

READ: College Student-Athlete Suspended After Telling Black Opponent, “At Least I Have My Father”

Well, that is exactly what they did.

As reported by The Intercept’s Shaun King, the NCAA used an early case (Vanskike v. Peters) that utilized a loophole in the 13th Amendment that allows legal unpaid labor in the case of imprisonment.

“Daniel Vanskike was a prisoner at Stateville Correctional Center in Joilet, Illinois, and Howard Peters was the Director of the State Department of Corrections,” King wrote. “In 1992, Vanskike and his attorneys argued that as a prisoner he should be paid a federal minimum wage for his work. The court in its decision, cited the 13th Amendment and rejected the claim.”

Now, the 13th Amendment is routinely hailed as the law that ended slavery in America, but it more or less sounds like it transitioned the definition and made it more legal and binding to enslave black-and-brown people. With the “school-to-prison pipeline” and other laws passively intended to punish black-and-brown people in tact, the NCAA has already won two other lawsuits that cited Vanskike v. Peters.

“Comparing athletes to prisoners is contemptible,” attorneys for former Villanova wide receiver Lawrence “Poppy” Livers wrote in their rebuttal to the NCAA’s motion. “The use of the Vanskike precedent is not only legally frivolous, but also deeply offensive to all Scholarship Athletes — and particularly to African Americans,” the rebuttal noted.

READ: Six NBA All-Stars Share Little Known Facts About Themselves

The NCAA believes that your favorite student-athlete, who you root for at school stadiums, purchase jerseys without their names on it and spend major coin (and eyeballs), buying tickets and watching on TV, are meant for indentured servitude. That by catching or shooting a ball, they are serving time for the NCAA as a means of gaining an education. With many students clinging to coins to make ends meet while they do so, it’s no surprise why so many jump into the professional leagues where they can have an ease of comfort while playing the sport they love.

As the NCAA shows that they do not care about black-and-brown people or the athletes in general, you should do yourself a favor and read the full story by Shaun King at The Intercept by clicking here.

SOURCE: The Intercept

Our Newsletter

Follow us on Social Media