The NCAA limits student-athletes to 20 hours of athletic activity per week; however, in reality, Division I athletes across the country report spending an average of 34 hours per week on their sport.  Locally, at Merrimack College, over 83% of surveyed student-athletes claim they feel pressured to attend "optional workouts" that DO NOT count toward the NCAA's 20-hour limit.

According to NCAA bylaws, student-athletes are permitted to spend no more than 20 hours per week on countable athletically related activities in order to protect education and well-being; however, that limit is routinely exceeded.  In research cited by the Drake Group, it shows that Division I athletes are spending an average of 34 hours per week on athletics while Division III athletes are still averaging 28.5 hours, well over the limit set by the NCAA (Drake Group).  Additionally, student-athletes are spending much less time on academics than the NCAA assumes while still being held to the same standards as non-athlete students in the classroom.  Full-time students are typically expected to spend somewhere between 45-60 hours in the classroom while student-athletes fall far below that benchmark.

This issue is not accidental; it is upheld by a corrupt system that relies heavily on technicalities rather than reality.  The NCAA permits "voluntary" workouts to exist outside of the 20-hour limit, but athletes have been reporting for years that these activities are anything but optional.  As a former collegiate athlete explained on a 2aDays feature, “plenty of athletes know that voluntary workouts are all but mandatory, because if you don’t put in the work when your coaches aren’t looking, you risk getting an earful about it from your coaches and teammates, or even losing your starting job or scholarship in extreme cases (2aDays).”  The pressure that these 'optional' workouts create has real consequences for student-athletes.   Coaches control playing time, rosters, and scholarships, where opting out of these activities seems irresponsible for athletes.

This unfair power dynamic is clear at the institutional level as well.  In a survey conducted with student-athletes at Merrimack College, over 83% of those who responded reported feeling pressured to attend activities that were labeled as optional and cited being scared of losing playing time, bad coach perception, or even loss of scholarship.  When national and local data coincide, the issue is no longer hearsay.  The issue is structural.  What the NCAA intended to be a form of protection has quickly become an ethical failure.

Addressing this issue requires structural reforms.  One possible solution is the creation of an anonymous reporting system that allows student-athletes to report coercive "optional" activities without the fear of their coaches finding out.  Anonymity is required because of the power coaches hold over players.  Additionally, the NCAA could consider improving compliance from coaches by offering bonuses or increasing the importance of coach evaluations.  Today, coaching bonuses are almost exclusively reserved for winning.  These reforms would not get rid of the competitive element of college sports; instead, they aim to make sure that the protections set forth for student-athletes actually do their job.