Wednesday, December 6, 2017

NFL National Anthem Controversy (2017)


The NFL has been in the news a lot more than usual lately and I am sure if you have looked at a screen in the last six months you have heard at least something about the National Anthem Protests. With all the Presidents tweets, the misunderstood players, and all the media outlets with the latest story of who said what, it really has been a hard story to follow but I will do my best to straighten out the facts. The controversy first started when Colin Kaepernick (then backup Quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers) sat on the bench instead of standing for the Anthem for the third preseason game and first 2 regular season games of the 2016 season. Colin was silent on his protest until an image of him sitting during the national anthem surfaced and his response to why he was sitting was because he disagreed with the oppression of people of color and ongoing issues with police brutality. Colin then reiterated that he wanted to be the voice for people that didn't have one and eventually started to kneel instead of sit. Fast forward a few months and Kaepernick is making National news while male and female athletes of many different nationalities from a variety of different sports at the professional, collegiate, high school, and youth levels all following in his footsteps and standing up (or kneeling down) for what they think is right. You may be thinking this happened over a year ago, why is it becoming a real controversy that needs to be dealt with now? Well that's where it starts to get a little confusing. Before, this all started the NFL did not have a rule regarding standing for the anthem. No one ever protested it before so it never was an issue. When the new season came around players started to protest again but this time President Trump condemned them for it. The president called them SOBs and said they should be fired if they protest. The President then told the public to boycott the NFL games if the protests continued. This is when the issue started to become national news again. On October 8th of this year, VP Mike Pence attended a colts and 49ers game and left after the anthem because of the protests. The president claimed that it was not about race but about disrespect towards our country and flag. A poll was taken and showed that two thirds of the NFL fan base agreed that the Players should stand for the anthem. When the NFL commissioner and team owners realized they could actually start to lose money because of this they decided something needed to be done. The owners and commissioner decided to schedule a meeting to resolve this issue and the players union was recently invited to attend. This meeting took place on October 17th, in downtown Manhattan. On hand at this meeting were Roger Goodell (the leagues commissioner), the league’s football operations chief, 2 former players, 10 team owners, the NFL players’ association executive director and president as well as 11 current NFL players. Colin Kaepernick was not invited to this meeting but his lawyer has said that he would like to attend meetings in the future. The outcome of this meeting was that there will be no change to the policy regarding the National Anthem as of now. However, the commissioner, owners, and players referred to the meeting as “positive”, “constructive”, and “a step in the right direction.” This is a very positive outcome for the NFL because it starts to mend the broken ties between the commissioner and owners and the players. This also shows the general public that the NFL is working with these players to create a positive change in their communities and can shed some positive light on the league.
In the center is Colin Kaepernick (#7) the man who was the first to protest the National Anthem.


In the case of the national anthem protests in the NFL there are many stakeholders. The stakeholders would include the entire NFL (owners, coaches, players, employees), fans of the NFL, NFL sponsors, and President Trump. President Trump is a stakeholder in this because many people believe this is a feud between the NFL and the President himself. Many people believe that the President is attacking the NFL not because of racial issues or disrespecting the flag but because he has a personal vendetta against the NFL. In the 80s President Trump was an investor and part owner in the United States Football league and filed a lawsuit against the NFL. In 2014 Trump tried to purchase an NFL team (Buffalo Bills) but was unsuccessful. Although it is not too far-fetched for our president to do something like this for personal reasons it is also not too far-fetched for a president to demand that everyone respect the anthem and the flag of the country they are currently trying to run. Regardless of his intentions the President is anxiously awaiting the results of the upcoming meeting. The NFL owners are large stakeholders in this controversy and probably in the toughest position. They have to decide on a solution that can fix the situation and not cause any harm. The owners have to contemplate influences from their coaches, players, and families as well as the NFL shareholders, fans, the president and his or her own personal values. The owners have to try and make all these people happy in addition to making a profitable decision. The players are important stakeholders in this matter because they are the ones that started the protest and are looking to get something out of it. I am not sure exactly what the players wanted to get out of the protests but they probably wanted to get a platform where they can inform people on the problems of police brutality as well as the oppression of colored people in our society and the meetings with the commissioner and owners may be exactly that. The NFL fans are stakeholders in this situation because they are the consumers that drive the business of the NFL and keep it profitable. If the NFL makes the fans unhappy this could be detrimental to the league. Ratings could start to fall, sales could start to plummet and worst case scenario fans start boycotting games and stop watching on Sunday. The NFL can get a new commissioner, new owners, and new players but it cannot get a new fan base and that is why these meetings have been made, because fans are becoming unhappy.


Individualism is a theory that states that an ethical business decision is one that will maximize the profits for the owners but without breaking any laws. For the owners to make an individualistic approach to what they hope to resolve in the upcoming meetings they would do what will in turn maximize their profits and I think they can achieve that if they focus on making the fans happy. The fans are the ones buying tickets to games and tuning in on Sunday so if you want to maximize profit you need to make them happy. Before this controversy, the NFL fan base was not upset with the NFL however, ratings had slightly dipped from the year before. That being said the NFL was still very well off financially. If the NFL wanted to take this approach they should choose to force the players to stand for the anthem because that is what the majority of fans believe should be done.


Players on the same team choosing different forms of protest.
Utilitarianism is the theory that states that the moral or right thing to do is the option that produces happiness in the greatest number of people. In other words according to Utilitarian’s the ethical thing to do is the action that promotes all around happiness to all parties affected. The 3 main stake holders in this dilemma are the Owners, players and fans and they all have many possible costs and benefits. The possible costs for the owners is that they will start to lose revenue and the possible benefit is that they will make their players and fans happy. The possible cost for the players is that they can be fired and the possible benefit is that they will improve quality of living in America for people of color as well as decreasing police brutality. The benefit for the fans would be that they don’t feel anyone is disrespecting flag and anthem and a possible cost would be not being able to watch football on Sunday because of declining revenues or a player strike. The utilitarian choice for this specific controversy is hard to distinguish because there are so many differing opinions and possible outcomes that can happen. Since two thirds of the NFL fan base is against protesting the national anthem I think the most utilitarian approach would be to force the players to stand for the anthem because that would produce happiness for the majority of people.


Kant’s formula of humanity states Humanity as an end in itself. Basically, Kantianism is a theory that states that people should respect others when making decisions and never do something that will benefit themselves at the cost of someone else. If someone with a Kantian approach were to make a decision on this controversy they would decide to let the players do whatever protest they wanted during the anthem. A Kantian would chose this approach because if they did the opposite it would harm the player’s efforts to have their voices be heard and issues dealt with. Also, if they chose to not take the Kantian approach and let the players protest than they might harming other people’s future protest efforts by taking away their freedom of speech.

Virtue Theory

Seattle Seahawks chose to stand with linked arms to show unity.
Virtue theory is a theory that states a person is making moral decisions when acting with good character traits and is immoral when acting with bad character traits. If the NFL wanted to show they are understanding they would let the players protest because they would understand where the players are coming from. If the NFL wanted to show they are open they would not change the policy and invite the players to discuss the issues which is what they are currently doing. If the NFL wanted to show they are compassionate they would let the players protest as well as starting a foundation to combat these issues that are being protested because this would show that the NFL wants to help people in need. Virtue theory can also work for negative traits. If the NFL put a stop to the protesting and did nothing to support the cause of the protesters they would be showing that they are immoral by acting on inconsiderate and selfish character traits.

Futterman, Matthew, and Andrew Beaton. “NFL Owners to Discuss Policy on Standing for Anthem.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 10 Oct. 2017,

Held, Amy. “NFL's Roger Goodell Says Players 'Should Stand' For National Anthem.” NPR, NPR, 11 Oct. 2017,

“NFL: No Mandate for Players to Stand during National Anthe
Futterman, Matthew, and Andrew Beaton. “NFL Owners to Discuss Policy on Standing for Anthem.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 10 Oct. 2017,

Held, Amy. “NFL's Roger Goodell Says Players 'Should Stand' For National Anthem.” NPR, NPR, 11 Oct. 2017,

“NFL: No Mandate for Players to Stand during National Anthem.”,

Wagoner, Nick. “NFL Players Union to Join Owners Meeting to Talk Anthem Controversy.”ESPN, ESPN Internet Ventures, 11 Oct. 2017,

“Roger Goodell: Didn't Ask Players, Owners to Change National Anthem Policy.” ESPN, ESPN Internet Ventures, 18 Oct. 2017,

King, Peter, et al. “Owners, Players Seek to Resolve Anthem Issue.”,

Saturday, November 25, 2017

Dove: Commercial Controversy.

Controversy  Dove is one of the most used brand names in the beauty industry. However, a controversy was brought to the attention of many social media users when Dove released a controversial ad on specific social media platform that caught the attention of many different women, but even some men had some input on the new commercial. The controversial ad: “Beauty brand Dove deleted a "three-second video clip" from its Facebook page and admitted Saturday that it had "missed the mark in thoughtfully representing women of color" in an ad for body wash. Consumers had reacted angrily to images of a black woman removing a brown shirt and appearing to transform into a white woman removing a similar shirt” (Held).

Stakeholders – A stakeholder to a company means that any person, organization, social group, or society at large that has a stake in the business. Stakeholders usually want the business or company to make positive decisions because if they do so the stakeholders would be affected positively. This is the same principle if the company or business does something negative to hurt the brand name which would also hurt your stakeholders. If the company or business does something negative to hurt the brand name, stakeholders could potentially sell their stock and not be associated at all with the company or business. In this case, since this ad affect a major culture group in America, Dove could see some backlash from their stakeholders backing out of their investment deals or simply selling their shares. Product sales would also be down after this ad touched the internet.

Individualism – The only direct goal of business is to profit, and the primary obligation of the business person is to maximize profits (Salazar). Even though profiting is the main goal, the theory states that you should respect human rights and the laws of the state which your business or company is located in. In this case, Dove is the individual that is trying to maximize their profits with the ad surfacing on social media. An advertisement is definitely a good way to spread awareness of a product which can lead to more sales. However, the message being portrayed in the commercial caused a lot of backlash on social media calling the commercial “racist”. In this case, this would not be maximizing profits due to controversy that Dove created.

Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is when we ought to bring out happiness and pleasure in all beings capable of feeling it. The reason for that is if happiness is valuable, there is no difference morally-speaking between my happiness and yours. With that being said, it was obvious that the majority of people did not agree with the message that was being portrayed in the ad. In this case to have Utilitarian value present in this situation, everyone from across all ethnicities would have to approve of the commercial not being racist and that it does still portray Dove’s products.

Kantianism – The basic principles of Kantianism is to act rationally. Don’t act inconsonantly in your own actions or consider yourself exempt from rules. In relevance to Kantianism, I believe that the people reviewing the commercial did not act rational to what was really being displayed in the message being sent out to the world. People where very outraged at the fact that it was portrayed that if you were any other color than white you would have been labeled as dirty. Kantianism also affects the stakeholders because based on the principles of Kantianism your supposed to act rational which you have abstained from impermissible actions and have done what is morally permissible or morally required. Dove did not follow the principles of Kantianism which hurts the stakeholders because it leaves the company in a negative light.

Virtue Theory – The last ethical theory I will use to assess this controversy is the virtue theory, the virtue theory has 4 main characteristics which are labeled as courage, honesty, temperance, and justice. Courage stands for risk-taking and willingness to take a stand for the right ideas and actions. Honesty is the agreements, hiring and treatment of employees, customers and other companies. Temperance is the reasonable expectations and desires. Finally, Justice is hard work, quality products, good ideas, fair practices. Sadly, Dove did not meet the measures of the Virtue theory since they broke the courage and justice characteristics. Dove did not display courage nor justice because the board that passed the commercial to be aired did not have a fair practice or a good idea along with not standing up for what would be right ideas and actions.


Monday, November 20, 2017

Social Findings (SoFi) Sexual Harassment Scandal: (2017)

Image result for Sofi
SoFi is a personal finance company


Social Findings Inc. (also known as SoFi) is an online personal finance company that provides personal loans, mortgages, and student loan refinancing. SoFi, based in San Francisco, is one of the fastest growing startups in the personal finance industry, with revenue rising 67% year-over-year to $134 million in the second quarter. It also funded $3.1 billion in loans during the quarter. SoFi claims they have so far "lent over $20 billion to more than 350,000 people". Students and other people who need assistance with debt come to SoFi for help because they provide reliable loans to help with their debt problems. SoFi doesn’t have a long history because it was created in 2011 by four students who graduated from the University of Stanford. The four students who created SoFi, Mike Cagney, Dan Macklin, James Finnigan, and Ian Brady all met while attending Stanford and created this company from personal experience of being in debt trouble from college tuition. They hoped to come up with a way to provide more affordable options for college students and other people who are in debt for education by getting alumni of Stanford to invest money into student’s educations. The company wanted to minimize defaults by targeting low-risk students to use the investments on. SoFi prides itself on being able to give students the right tools in order to pay off their education debts. By the year 2013, only two years after the company was started, SoFi funded $200 million in loans to 2,500 borrowers at the company’s 100 eligible schools.

SoFi has been very successful and trusted by anyone who was in debt for help since the company was created, until recent allegations have come up concerning the CEO of the company. Mike Cagney, who is one of the original founders of the company, is planning to step down as the CEO after a lawsuit and allegations that there was sexual harassment coming from the managers of the company and because of improper loan paperwork at the online personal finance startup. Employees of the company would report sexual harassment from the managers of the company, but then be fired shortly after. One employee who this happened to, Brandon Charles, is in the process of suing the company as he claims that he was fired for the sole reason that he reported a sexual harassment case saying that managers would harass female co-workers. This sexual harassment has been going on for a long time and when someone finally said something about it they were fired, so it raised a lot of suspicion about who was running the company and why they would allow this to happen. Cagney had previously announced that he would be stepping down at the end of this year, but now claims that he will be stepping down immediately following the sexual harassment allegations. After this scandal involving the sexual harassment allegations and the improper loan paperwork, it is going to be hard for people to trust SoFi again because they have just proved that even though managers were caught breaking the rules, no punishments have been given for their actions.
There have also been allegations directly against Cagney stating that he had inappropriate relationships with some company employees and that he has been dodging risk and compliance controls. After an investigation looking directly into Cagney and his company, it was concluded that there were accusations from more than 30 current and former employees, who said he had treated women inappropriately and had aggressively taken on risk to accelerate the company’s growth. Cagney had no response to the allegations other than to step down as CEO and leave all the damage control for the next in line to run the company. His decision to step down immediately after the allegations have raised suspicion about the CEO and his actions. A toxic workplace was created for all the female employees who were getting harassed and all the other employees who were fired over filing cases on that harassment.
Anyone that would look at this case with one of the four ethical theories of Individualism, Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Virtue theory would easily see that the actions that have been done by Cagney and his managers are completely and utterly unethical


Image result for SoFi scandal
SoFi faces many sexual harassment allegations against women
The stakeholders are any people who affect or get affected by the company's actions, either positive or negative. In the case of SoFi, the stakeholders would have to do with anybody who was involved in the sexual harassment allegations and improper loan allegations. Arguably the biggest stakeholder in this situation would be Mike Cagney because of his role in this whole scandal. Not only does Cagney have over thirty current and former employees saying that they were sexually harassed by him, but also managers he hired are also having allegations against them for harassment. His actions affected the company because female employees were made to feel extremely uncomfortable while at work and anybody who tried to stand up for them and report this harassment was fired or harassed as well. Also, after these allegations he stepped down from CEO, leaving someone new to be in charge who could change the whole dynamics of the company. His actions also negatively affected the thirty individuals who were harassed directly by him because it got bad enough to the point where thirty women actually reported how much he was harassing them. Another stakeholder in the company would be Brandon Charles, who was fired for his actions. Charles was trying to do the right thing in reporting sexual harassment when he saw it, but was fired because of it by the managers who he was trying to accuse. In return, Charles is planning to sue the company, which will affect anyone who is apart of the company in a negative way. Other stakeholders include anyone who was sexually harassed because they were negatively affected by the company, especially since no action was taken to prevent it from happening again. The managers who committed the sexual harassment would also be stakeholders because they were apart of the problem of the company and are still working at SoFi after all the allegations against them. The female stakeholders in this case never got any action done on their behalf after being harassed not only by their managers, but also the CEO of the company, which is putting a bad name on SoFi. In order to fix this, the company needs to fire all the stakeholders that affected the company in a negative way, like the managers who harassed and give some sort of benefits to the stakeholders who were affected by the managers and CEO's actions.


Image result for loans
Multiple Managers were accused of improper loan paperwork
Individualism is explained in the context of an ethical action as "business actions should maximize profits for the owners of a business, but do so within the law" (Salazar 17). One thing SoFi aimed for was to maximize profits, but they didn't always do it in a legal way. There were many reports against SoFi and Cagney stating that the company had improper loan paperwork that was giving the company more money then they should've been receiving from people in debt. It wasn't just one person who recorded improper loans, but multiple managers did it and were reported doing it by some of the coworkers and no action was taken against them, just like for the sexual harassment allegations. An individualist would not think this situation is ethical because although the company is making a great deal of profit, they are not doing it within the law. SoFi has been very successful in the past and did not need to start using improper loan paperwork's to earn a profit because they were already profitable, but let success and power get in their heads and tried to earn even more of a profit, but in an illegal way. One way they can turn this around is to just start doing what they were doing before the improper loan paperwork started because it was working and the company was still making a profit. The allegations of sexual harassment have also stained the companies reputation making them earn less of a profit because fewer people want to take loans from a company that allows that inappropriate behavior. An individualist would have to say that SoFi is completely unethical for their actions in trying to achieve high profits for the company for the reasons that they did it in an illegal way and ended up losing money because of the sexual harassment allegations.


Utilitarianism states that "business actions should aim to maximize the happiness in the long run for all conscious beings that are affected by the business action" (Salazar 17). This company's actions was the complete furthest from a utilitarian viewpoint because in the end nobody was happy with how the company's actions affected them. Mike Cagney is stepping down sooner than he wanted to too avoid responsibility for his actions, making it so he can't end his career at SoFi the way he wanted to. His actions did not help the company in the long run because he only cared for the short run profits and making himself happy, but got called out for his sexual harassment incidents and improper loan paperwork. None of the stakeholders who were sexually harassed were happy with the company's actions because nothing was done to stop this from happening in the future and most of the managers who committed the harassment are still working at SoFi. These workers have to stress over going to work and wondering if they are going to be sexually harassed while working every day and that is why a utilitarianist would declare this action extremely unethical. Brandon Charles was also screwed over in the long run by the companies actions because he was fired and lost his job and it is much harder to find another job after you've been fired once. Charles was only trying to do the right thing and bring happiness to his female coworkers by reporting the sexual harassment, but in the end, was fired for his actions and the employees who did the harassment were able to keep their jobs.Any utilitarian would be extremely disappointed with SoFi's actions because in the end, nobody was happy with the outcome of the companies actions.


 Anyone who follows Kantianism believes that one should always "act in ways that respect and honor individuals and their choices. Don't lie, cheat, or manipulate or harm others to get your way. Rather, use informed and rational consent from all parties" (Salazar 17). SoFi did just the opposite of what a Kantian believes by lying and cheating some of their customers by making improper loans and harmed other employees by sexually harassing them. Nothing about SoFi's actions was honorable, especially since the CEO decided to step down in the middle of these allegations instead of dealing with the problems he created. The managers and CEO showed no respect to their female coworkers by constantly harassing them and making them feel uncomfortable at work. Another concept of Kantian ethics is the Formula of Humanity. The Formula of Humanity is described as to "act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means" (Salazar. This means that a Kantian believes that one should not ever be unfair or treat others poorly. SoFi went against this by treating employees unfairly with the sexual harassment and treating customers unfairly by writing improper loans. A Kantian would deem SoFi's actions as unethical in every way possible.

Virtue Theory

A Virtue Theorist believes that one should "act so as to embody a variety of virtuous or good character traits and so as to avoid vicious or bad character traits" (Salazar 17).The four primary virtues that any virtue theorist examines are prudence, justice, temperance, and courage. If a company or person shows these four character traits they are looked at as ethical to a virtue theorist. In the case of SoFi, they did not use prudence when making decisions because they knew the action of making improper loans was wrong and illegal but did it anyway to try and earn more profit. The people working at SoFi were not shown justice after the companies action because after all the sexual harassment allegations nothing was done to stop the harassment and the only thing that did happen was the people who reported the harassment got fired. The managers and CEO also showed no signs of temperance as they constantly harassed women that they worked with because they had the power to do it and get away with it. This is a really bad look for the company that needs to get fixed as soon as possible to repair how the company looks. The last character trait a virtue theorist examines is courage. Courage is something Brandon Charles showed when he tried reporting the managers for their deviant actions, but got fired in the end, which was a cowardly move by the company. SoFi's actions failed all four of the character tests that a virtue theorist examines and therefore is unethical.


Benner, K. (2017). SoFi Board Says C.E.O. Is Out Immediately Amid Sexual Harassment Scandal. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Nov. 2017].

Fiegerman, S. (2017). SoFi CEO resigns immediately following sexual harassment claims. [online] CNNMoney. Available at: [Accessed 8 Nov. 2017]. (2017). Forbes Welcome. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Nov. 2017].

Salazar, Heather. "Business Ethics PowerPoints" Business Ethics. Online. 8 Nov. 2017. Lecture.

SoFi. (2017). Our Story | Leader in Marketplace Lending & Investing. [online] Available at:[Accessed 8 Nov. 2017].

Wang, S. and Verhage, J. (2017). SoFi's CEO Steps Down as Sexual Harassment Claims Damage Morale.[online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Nov. 2017].

Yu, R. (2017). SoFi CEO to step down after claims of managers' sexual harassment. [online] USA TODAY. Available at: [Accessed 8 Nov. 2017].

Thursday, November 16, 2017

Donald De La Haye vs. NCAA (2016-Present)

The National Collegiate Athletic Association(NCAA) is one of the biggest associations in the world without a doubt. The non-profit organization, manages 98 athletic conferences that house approximately 1,123 colleges and universities. From these 1,123 colleges and universities, there are almost half a million student athletes. In recent years a topic of discussion regarding student athletes and the NCAA has been, Should student athletes get paid for playing collegiate sports? Some people argue that student athletes should get paid seeing that they devote just about all of their
The NCAA generates an estimated $1 billion per year.
free time towards the schools athletic program and that playing collegiate sports is like having a full-time job. Others would argue that most of these student's are receiving a free education, receiving free equipment and school apparel and that is enough compensation to be play collegiate sports. 

De La Haye (pictured) created his YouTube channel back in 2015.
Currently, student athletes cannot get paid for their performance. There is an entire handbook written by the NCAA that has all of the rules and regulations that each student athlete must follow to stay eligible to continue to play for their respected school. A few rules from the handbook are that a student athlete cannot be paid for their performance, A student athlete cannot receive any benefit that is not available to other students at the college or university. These are just a few of many rules and regulations that each student athlete needs to follow to stay eligible. Recently a member of the University of Central Florida's football team, kicker Donald De La Haye came into the news for being deemed ineligible to play by the NCAA. The NCAA says the De La Haye violated NCAA rules by receiving money from advertisements on monetized videos that De La Haye posted onto his YouTube channel. The NCAA says that once De La Haye started to make his videos monetized is when he violated NCAA rules. The NCAA says that De La Haye was generating revenue from his likeliness, and him being a student athlete. After being contacted by the NCAA, and meeting with them various times regarding that YouTube channel and generating revenue from it, the NCAA gave De La Haye an ultimatum. He could keep his YouTube channel while still playing football at UCF and stay at school under a few conditions. He had to take down every video that referenced him being a student athlete, and every video that showed his athletic ability, as well as never post a video along those lines again, and donate all of the money he earned to a charity of his choosing. The second option was to be keep the channel and the money, but be deemed ineligible, which UCF would then remove him from the team for violating NCAA rules, and then lose his football scholarship which would also result in him not being able to attend school for financial reasons. De La Haye choose the second option, seeing that he thought the NCAA was being unreasonable. De La Haye says that a lot of his videos involve football, and that he couldn't just not make any videos that involved it. He said that the NCAA told him that he wouldn't even be able to throw a football with his friends in a video. De La Haye is now pursuing to finish his degree, as well a profession in professional photography and videography.  

UCF has received backlash for removing
De La Haye from the football team.
When you look back at this controversy and think about who is affected by it, you see three stakeholders. One is Donald De La Haye. He has the biggest stake within this controversy. His college football career is at stake, his education is at stake, and his YouTube channel is at stake. De La Haye being forced to decide between two things he loves(Football, and YouTube) which from one perspective seems like it would be an easy choice. Pick the option where you can still go to school for free. But when you believe that you aren't doing anything wrong, the choice isn't that easy. From another perspective, it seems wrong to fault a student for making money and being a successful entrepreneur, when that's what he's learning to be in school. A second stakeholder would be the NCAA. The NCAA is affected because they found that De La Haye was violating NCAA rules. The NCAA has strict rules about players being paid, and they are affected when a student athlete violates these rules. A final stakeholder is the University of Central Florida. They are affected because they are supposed to be implementing the NCAA rules and regulations, which if the NCAA is finding De La Haye of violating those rules, then UCF is not implementing the way they are supposed to. UCF also had to remove De La Haye from the football team, as well as revoke his scholarship. UCF is also affected by gaining negative attention for the removal of De La Haye from the football team. Some people have called out the school publicly on YouTube in the comment section of De La Haye's videos. 

Individualism states that "business actions should maximize profits for owners of a business, but do this within the law" (Salazar, 17.) Not only do they need to maximize profits within the law, they must respect human rights as well. This is exactly what the NCAA is doing. They are maximizing profits for the owners within the law. Legally speaking, the NCAA is not required to pay student athletes for performance. Although you could argue that the NCAA isn't respecting the human rights of the student athlete's and should be paying the student athletes, they aren't required to. Not by the law, and not by the set of rules that the NCAA had created. So the NCAA is following the Individualism theory perfectly, as the NCAA does not pay the student athletes to play, they don't pay for the student's scholarships, and they don't pay for any of the equipment or apparel that is given to the athletes. From De La Haye's standpoint, athletes aren't being paid for their service to the NCAA, and their right to minimum wage. It's a hard conversation because it becomes not a legal conversation to pay the student athlete's, it's a ethical conversation. 
A comic published in the Huffington Post references
what student athlete's cannot receive vs. what
they do receive.

In the comic pictured to the right, it shows two college athletes who are pulling a car, that is owned by the NCAA. In the conversation between the athletes, one says "No money, No gifts, No cars, No endorsement deals, Tell me again, why are we doing this?" and the other responds with "For an education, but I'm not feeling too smart" This comic references what collegiate athletes are not eligible to receive, and what they do receive as a student athlete. With the conversation in the comic, the athletes are not happy with what they can't receive, and what they do receive isn't enough. Utilitarianism states that "the business actions should aim to maximize the happiness in the long run for all conscious beings that are affected by the business action." So in this case in a perfect world, De La Haye would be able to make his YouTube videos, and receive the money from the advertisements while playing football at the University of Central Florida, making money for the NCAA. But this is not a perfect world, and that scenario cannot exist. De La Haye isn't happy in this controversy, he feels singled out, and thinks that there are bigger things that NCAA should worry about. A quote from one of his videos, says "You have some NCAA athlete's out here smoking weed, beating women, only getting a slap on the wrist with one game suspensions, and here I am being ruled ineligible for making YouTube videos, and pursuing my career." Under utilitarianism, this controversy would be unethical, with De La Haye who is affected being unhappy. 

Kantianism asks that we treat people with respect and treat them as equally capable of living an autonomous life. Simplified, it means to treat people right, and do the right thing. The NCAA does not seem to be following this. With the De La Haye controversy, the NCAA is restricting his freedom, not allowing De La Haye to make money of future videos that involved football, the NCAA, and UCF makes sense, and made sense to De La Haye, but it was telling De La Haye, that if he kept his channel, and wanted to play football that he would have to donate his previously earned money to a charity of his choosing. This was the part that didn't make sense. De La Haye said "I worked hard for this money, and now I can't keep it?" After doing a little research on how much a YouTuber makes, with De La Haye's views and subscriber count, it's estimated he had generated around ten thousand dollars from his videos. The NCAA, generates over a billion dollars a year, is concerned with ten thousand dollars. De La Haye was also quoted saying, "They make millions of my name, but I can't make a few thousand off of mine?" Which a lot of people who commented on De La Haye's videos seemed to agree with. De La Haye also claims that the NCAA, and his coaching staff at UCF seemed to be against him throughout the whole process, and it didn't seem like anyone had his back. If these claims are accurate, and the NCAA and UCF were not being respectful during this process, that would be considered unethical using the Kantianism Theory.  

De La Haye (pictured) will not play again at UCF.
Virtue Theory      
The Virtue Theory states that "Character traits that promote wellness or flourishing of individuals within a society." Personally, I think that the NCAA is a greedy company, that wouldn't promote wellness to any individual within a society unless it had money attached to it. I also believe that the NCAA doesn't seem to care much about it's student athletes as much as they claim. They don't care whether you go to school for one year and go pro, or if you stay for four years, and receive your degree. They just care about the dollar signs, and how much of those dollar signs they're bringing in off of the players. To promote wellness, would ensure that the student athletes are happy, which for a lot of those athletes would be a pay wage for the amount of blood, sweat, and tears that these student athletes put in for their respected schools. Ultimately, I think that the NCAA should look at what they're doing from an ethical standpoint and ask themselves if everything they're doing is ethically and morally right. 

Works Cited    
                                                                                                                                              1.)    “Deestroying.” YouTube, YouTube,

2.)   “NCAA rules UCF kicker ineligible for monetizing videos.”,                    football/2017/07/31/ucf-kicker-donald-de-la-haye-ineligible-ncaa-youtube-videos.                  

3.) “Search NCAA.Org.” - The Official Site of the NCAA     

4.)     Vcortez. “What is the NCAA?” - The Official Site of the NCAA, 19 Sept. 2017,

5.)    Wolken, Dan. “UCF kicker controversy wouldn't happen if NCAA gave athletes the rights they deserve.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 1 Aug. 2017,