1. Michael Prince
12/1/15
Many would agree that the biggest injustice for student athletes is that the same game that
some could play for millions; many are forced to play for free with all of the risks and none of
the rewards. As an adult, which is defined as age 18 in the US, you can go to war or even get
married, so why not be the NBA. Is it fair that I can be an equipment manager or a water boy but
not a player? The NBA has compromised its moral integrity by implementing rules that limit the
opportunities for young adults, specifically minorities, purely for the sake of keeping the revenue
generated by their hard work in the pockets of the owners.
As Part of the 2005 collection bargaining agreement, the NBA player eligibility rule was
updated. The new rule says the player is or will be at least 19 years of age during the calendar
year in which the Draft is held, and with respect to a player who is not an international player, at
least one NBA Season has elapsed since the player’s graduation from high school (or, if the
player did not graduate from high school, since the graduation of the class with which the player
would have graduated had he graduated from high school). The league would have you think that
this decision was made in the best interest of the league. However, that is simply not the case.
They often state that college experienced athletes are consistently better than “unexperienced”
high school players. Yet, they have provided no evidence to support that claim. I believe that is
because such statistics do not exist. Every once in a while a very special talent emerges. These
high school phenomena’s are just as likely to succeed as any college player. Basketball history is
littered with 18 year old millionaires, playing the game at its highest level. Among them are stars
like LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, and the recently deceased hall of famer Daryl
Chocolate Thunder Dawkins.
The NBA is a business. And like any business, it is driven by revenue. A few good men
put their minds and wallets together and created a place where the best players in the world can
be financially stable and lead a fulfilling career playing the game they love. Many would argue
that it is the privilege of the players to have an opportunity to play in this league. Considering the
alternatives, for most it is. Even with that being said, the league would not exist in this capacity
without the players. It is no coincidence that the teams with the most talent are the most
successful. Without the players, there are no tickets being sold. I think that is enough to warrant
the utmost consideration for the needs and wants of the NBA players. However, in most cases,
the owners often neglect these moral values in favor of putting money in their pockets and the
players are milked.
In an article on SBnation.com, writer Tom Ziller discredits the statements made by the
league that say the new rules are good for the game. Owners claim they reduce the risk of
picking busts or unprepared players in the NBA Draft by allowing them time to further develop

2. their skillsets at the collegiate level. They also believe the extended sample size will allocate
scouts with more material with which they can make more informed decisions. However, Tom
points out that no data presented widely actually argues that the age limit has helped prevent
busts in the lottery. While looking at data in 2011 using four years before the current age
minimum was instituted in 2006 and four years after, he determined that the “bust” rate was
nearly identical. In the NBA draft, top ten picks are where you expect to get high caliber players.
In the four years before the change 11/40 picks were busts; in the four years after 10/40 where
busts. Isn’t that interesting?
So if the rule change doesn’t actually have the players best interest in mind, who is it for
and what is it about? The rule is without a doubt, for the owners and about the money. It’s
immoral and it promotes greed. Usnews.com analyst Pat Garofalo agrees with me. He reported
the age limit as a way for both the NCAA and NBA to make more money at the expense of the
players. Simply put a conspiracy to lower wages and reap more revenue from those providing the
sport’s actual labor. As a direct result of this rule, the NCAA and the Developmental league have
been inflated with NBA caliber players.
Webster’s defines oppression as unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power.
Institutional oppression is when established laws, customs, or practices methodically produce
inequities based on one’s membership in targeted social identity groups. Ask yourself what
classes of people generally make up the bulk of the NBA draft; then, ask yourself what classes of
people make up the NBA’s owners and authority figures. Although they deny it, it is true. This is
an act against the lower class; primarily lower class minorities. Intention does not yield
innocence. When oppressive consequences emerge from institutional laws, customs, or practices,
the institution is oppressive regardless of if the individuals maintaining those practices have
oppressive intentions. So, how can they claim any form of moral integrity while they oppress
these athletes? They can’t.