Amateurism is a word that we hear a lot about in sports journalism. We have heard it for year, spoken of in a reverent tone, as if being an amateur gave you a solid stance on the moral high ground to those who performed for *gasp* money.
The hypocrisy of this stance has been discussed ad nauseam, especially where major college athletics are concerned. The Universities grant scholarships to athletes who will help their teams to succeed. Those student athletes commit to playing only for their school's teams until the agreement is voided by one party or the other. All in all, that is a pretty reasonable agreement. You play for us, and we give you services in place of dollars which, if you take full advantage of the opportunity, gives you a plan if you don't get rich playing your game. Considering the cost of a college degree, these scholarships are no small item, especially for those who are not stars.
If you look at the backup guard on the football team, for example. Let's assume that his family, like most in America, will be financially challenged at paying for a college degree. This means that someone, likely the student, would be taking on considerable debt. Instead, by working for the athletics department, and let's not pretend that playing big time college athletics is anything less than a job, he will come out with 4 years of education at no cost. And in many cases, he will have had the opportunity to attend a better university, and had a better support structure in place to help him succeed. This is, again, no small item, and it does give the school the right to make some demands...just as the benefits of employment grant any other employer the right to demand some concessions. They have the right to demand performance in the job of the employee, or a given time period, and they have the right to demand that they employees will not work against them. The question, to my mind, is this: Do they have the right to control what they employee does outside of their preparation and performance?