Emancipation Proclamation has not been fully realized and actualized for the Blacks collectively. Yes, there has been the abolishment of the institution of slavery, but equal and equitable access to the American Dream has not been the collective lived experience of the descendants of enslaved Africans on U.S. soil. There have been strives made toward racial progress, where some semblance of equity and equality have been experienced by a small percentage of Blacks in the U.S. The combination of hard work, education, legislation, and persistence has afforded opportunities to some, but the collective Black population has yet to be fully emancipated from a system of white supremacy that consistently views it as inferior, a political nuisance, and an exploitable cog in a system of capitalism.
Various institutions in the U.S. have accumulated wealth at the expense of the Black body. For example, E. N. Elliott, an advocate for slavery, in Cotton Is King, makes an interesting, although inaccurate comment regarding the status of slaves and their labor. He states that, “The person of the slave is not property, no matter what the fictions of the law may say; but the right to his labor is property and may be transferred like any other property.” It is inaccurate because the enslaved were both property and their labor were property. Therefore, the benefit of slavery was at least twofold: profitable to the slave trader and the plantation owner, who often was the same person. This two-fold gain of slavery created a multi-billion dollar wealth transfer that many corporations, universities, and other institutions are reaping benefits in the 21st century.
In my use of the plantation analogy, I see this comment as an accurate assessment of the modern-day Black athlete competing in revenue-generating intercollegiate sports before the name, image, and likeness (NIL) legislation. They are not necessarily the property of the institutions they compete at, but their athletic labor is the property and profitable to the university, and up until now, their name, image, and likeness were properties of the university and profitable to these institutions. To speak more clearly, it is the athletic labor of Black males in football and basketball that undergird a multi-billion dollar industry. They make up the highest percentage of starters that compete the majority of minutes during these ultra-commercialized events. Corporations compete financially to have their products interwoven within this athletic product. The monetization of an athlete’s NIL has been a part of this wealth transfer where athletes did not own the rights to the athletic product their athletic labor produced, nor could they profit from the use of their NIL.
Well, as of July 1, 2021, there has been progress toward emancipation where athletes have finally been given the rights to profit from their NIL. This move accelerated after several states passed some form of NIL legislation, which forced the National Collegiate Athletic Association to relinquish its economic stronghold over athletes, especially those in revenue-generating sports. Therefore, companies and corporations can now have individual athletes endorse their products. In the coming months, there will be growing pains to this new economic arrangement. Some athletes will be able to convert their athletic capital into lucrative opportunities, while others may not have the same advantages. Regardless, returning athletes’ rights to their NIL to the athlete is progress toward athletic emancipation. It moves out of 17th and 18th-century labor practices into a century where labor practices are not ideal but more palatable.
