Many media outlets and fans are questioning if NCAA athletics has become too commercialized over recent years. One of the initial areas the institutions began to treat athletics as a “commercialized” entity was during apparel negotiations with apparel companies. If the NCAA did not want to be commercialized, they needed to stop apparel contracts at the start. The best comparison to the NCAA commercialization issue is like a parent who deals with a child on drugs. If the parent has a desire to stop drug use by their children, they need to stop it early and often, once the child uses drugs for 20 years, it will become much more difficult to stop. If the NCAA had a desire to stop the commercialization of student-athletes, it had to stop the issue 20 years ago. I firmly believe the addiction to those funds provides a very difficult situation for the NCAA to cut them off.
In 1993, over 20 years ago, North Carolina signed one of the initial apparel contracts in the NCAA. According to Stein (2004), North Carolina “signed a five-year deal with Nike worth an estimated $11 million to the University, and Nike …show more content…
According to Jones (2014), Louisville Head Basketball Coach Rick Pitino said “the Cardinals recruiting prospect pool shrinks because they’re sponsored by Adidas instead of Nike, even though recruits argue that apparel companies have little or no sway on their decisions.” (para. 3). In addition, the Courier Journal researched the two prominent schools in the state of Kentucky to see if subconsciously athletes are drawn to schools based on their apparel. According to Jones (2014), “since the 2010 recruiting class, 75 percent of recruits signed by the Nike-sponsored University of Kentucky came from Nike-backed travel programs. During that same period, 43 percent of signees at Adidas-sponsored U of L came from Nike clubs.” (p.
In 1993, over 20 years ago, North Carolina signed one of the initial apparel contracts in the NCAA. According to Stein (2004), North Carolina “signed a five-year deal with Nike worth an estimated $11 million to the University, and Nike …show more content…
According to Jones (2014), Louisville Head Basketball Coach Rick Pitino said “the Cardinals recruiting prospect pool shrinks because they’re sponsored by Adidas instead of Nike, even though recruits argue that apparel companies have little or no sway on their decisions.” (para. 3). In addition, the Courier Journal researched the two prominent schools in the state of Kentucky to see if subconsciously athletes are drawn to schools based on their apparel. According to Jones (2014), “since the 2010 recruiting class, 75 percent of recruits signed by the Nike-sponsored University of Kentucky came from Nike-backed travel programs. During that same period, 43 percent of signees at Adidas-sponsored U of L came from Nike clubs.” (p.