I
n 1978, when the federal Sports Act was promulgated for the development of U.S. amateur athletics, there were no Olympic Training Centers. Most of our U.S. Olympic teams would gather several weeks before the event to train. There were few professional athletes on the Olympic scene, although many countries supported amateur athletes through government funding. Sport was much simpler then. National sports governing organizations were little more than volunteer organizations.
Times have certainly changed.
Today, those sports organizations have eight-figure budgets and are run by large professional staffs. They run national championship events and national team tours, garnering significant sponsorship and spectator dollars.
And if the organizations have changed, so have athletes. Today, a large majority of athletes in the most popular sports are no longer amateurs. U.S. national teams train together for four years or during the year leading up to the Olympic Games. Individual athletes support themselves through endorsement contracts, speaking engagements and appearance fees.
As these transformations are taking place, they emphasize certain inequities in sports. Players, both men and women, have legitimate questions concerning training stipends and rights to their names and images. These are crucial issues to athletes. If we fail to solve them in the near future, we will be looking at athlete boycotts and the unionization of amateur athletes in this country.
Inadequate training stipends. The Sports Act provides for arbitration of disputes between athletes and their national governing bodies in situations where athletes have been denied the right to try out for a national team or when the national team selection process is considered arbitrary or unfair. In matters of national team salary disputes, the right to arbitration is not currently available. Thus, if a governing organization says that an athlete cannot play on a national team unless the athlete agrees to gives up his or her employment and train full time, and the player cannot afford to play under these circumstances, then only athletes who can afford to give up their livelihoods can play for their country. It appears that there should be a right to arbitration in these circumstances in that a player who cannot afford to play under these conditions is denied the opportunity to try out for a national team.
Marketplace salaries. National governing bodies should establish monthly training stipends and game payments that reflect a reasonable living wage for an athlete in training so that athletes of all socio-economic levels can afford to represent their country. That doesn't mean marketplace salaries to attract today's professional athletes, because national nonprofit organizations just couldn't afford today's sports stars. Even if they could, wouldn't that money be better spent for the development of grassroots programs? It's the responsibility of national governing bodies to grow their sports rather than put more dollars into the pockets of those who have already benefited from the system. It's much more reasonable to assume that athletes should regard playing for their country as an honor. But a fair salary to all athletes representing our country should not only guarantee the participation of the best athletes, but treat athletes of all economic classes with dignity. Athletes shouldn't have to suffer economic loss to represent our country. Perhaps the fairest solution is for corporations and sports leagues to develop honorable policies toward leave and salaries of athletes when they go off to represent us all. When such fair policies result in further athletic success, shouldn't the bulk of the resulting dollars go back to developing that sport?
Balance of interests. A number of governing bodies are making unreasonable attempts to control the marketing of individual player names, images and appearances. There must be a fair balance between the national governing bodies and individual athletes in revenue derived from marketing the names, images and appearances of players. The professional teams have figured this out by permitting athletes to appear together without infringing upon national team appearance or promotional rights, leaving shoes and personal equipment to individual athletes. With rights come responsibilities. Because a national governing body has been given the right to name a U.S. national team, it should not have an unlimited right to exploit an athlete.
There are more than 40 national governing bodies under the U.S. Olympic Committee umbrella, each with a varied degree of experience in dealing with these issues. The USOC should gather a representative committee to develop the principles to guide these bodies in addressing these issues and should hold them accountable. Let's get our act together soon. Sports and the many young athletes who participate in them will be healthier for doing so.
Donna Lopiano is executive director of the Women's Sports Foundation.
