Why College Athletes Should Be Paid
$53.4 Million the combined salary of the top 15 paid coaches in division 1 college football, $0 the combined salary of all student-athletes. Over the past few decades, college athletics have gained popularity across the United States. Whether it is football, basketball, or baseball, ever since the turn of the century, intercollegiate sports have brought in a surplus of revenue to their respective Universities. A recent study found that the University of Texas’ Athletic Program had the highest revenue of any other University at a little over $120 million. Yet with this large sum of money, NO college athletes are legally compensated for their work. According to NCAA rules, “You are not eligible for participation in a sport if you have ever: Taken pay or the promise of pay, for competing in that sport”.
While it may seem odd and unjust to pay college athletes, the reality is that compensation of such athletes is a necessity not only to keep competition at a steady level in college athletics, but also to encourage students to graduate and get their college degrees. Student athletes should be compensated for their work, as they are the sole reason for the Athletic Program’s surplus in revenue. These athletes are working for the schools and are doing a service to the college that seems to go unnoticed. Colleges are using these athletes to boost their respective reputations and bring in revenue while not compensating these athletes for their work.
Everywhere else athletes are paid, so why shouldn’t college students too? Some critics may argue that these student-athletes are amateurs, and if paid then are becoming professional athletes. The minor league for baseball could be considered an amateur sport, although they do receive pay according to the team’s revenue. Also, with all the time practicing and working in the classroom, how many athletes have time to actually get a job? Another argument that supports paying college athletes is that these “full-ride” scholarships given to the best athletes do not actually cover all their expenses. Many athletes still can’t afford to have their parents come to the stadium and watch the games. With all of the respect and publicity of these athletes, it goes unnoticed that a great deal of the players live very near to the poverty line. Due to this lack of money, black-markets are created. Here, boosters that represent the University give these players’ cars, spending money, or anything they truly want, and in return, these players go to their respective University.
There have been many instances of this before, one prominent example is that of Reggie Bush, the running back for the University of Southern California from 2003-2005. Bush was paid by boosters to attend USC, which violated NCAA rules. Bush’s mother was having trouble paying rent for her apartment at the time in Pasadena. Bush felt obligated to take this offer, as there was no other way to make money and pay for his mother’s home. These boosters’ actions are not only are illegal, but create unfairness in competition amongst the NCAA. These universities that violate NCAA rules have an upper edge in recruiting top prospects. Schools are then tempted to violate such rules to even out the playing field.
The last and arguably the most important reason to pay college athletes, is that it will ensure that most student-athletes will complete their college degrees. “Paying student-athletes would provide an incentive to stay in school and complete their degree programs, instead of leaving early for the professional leagues” Which brings me back to the question, “Should college athletes get paid?” If athletes are paid to play, not only can they cover some of their college expenses that scholarships couldn’t, but also now they will want to finish their education. NCAA prides itself on all student-athletes are students first and athletes second, however, it seems that more popular athletes leave early for the pros.
In college basketball, many freshman stars are referred to as “one and done” players as they complete one year of college and go to the professional leagues early, as they want money and need it as soon as possible. The importance of their education is lost. The University seems to be hypocritical in its actions when it doesn’t pay its athletes, because it seems they support college athletes leaving for the Professional league early. One author suggests that every university pays the same flat rate to each college athlete for three years, and then offer a raise to senior athletes. This bonus will create that incentive for students to receive their degrees.
While it may seem odd and unjust to pay college athletes, the reality is that compensation of such athletes is a necessity not only to keep competition at a steady level in college athletics, but also to encourage students to graduate and get their college degrees. The truth of the matter is that many college athletes are already being paid under the table which creates a black-market that is not only illegal, but is also unfair to universities that abide by NCAA regulations. Universities are exploiting these students and allowing them not to receive any revenue that they clearly earned. College Athletes Should Be Paid!
Should College Athletes Be Paid?
College athletics have gained immense popularity among Americans over the past few decades. This has resulted into increased revenues for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the participating colleges which has fuelled the debate of whether college athletes should be compensated beyond their athletic scholarships. This paper will attempt to answer the question as to whether college athletes should be paid by exploring the reasons for and against the payment of college athletes.
Reasons why college students should be paid
Athletes form the basic unit of intercollegiate sports. Despite the success of NCAA tournaments, athletes do not receive any monetary compensation. The main reasons fronted by the NCAA for lack of payment are that it wants to maintain its amateur status and that payment would compromise the integrity of intercollegiate athletics. It has increased its profits through the sale of merchandise, television rights and licenses for video games. Athletes play an active role in the promotion of these activities but do not benefit from the profits that are generated. This can be viewed as exploitation and is unethical.
Other students on scholarships are paid when their offer their services to their schools and the same should apply for athletes. This is because athletes offer more to their colleges than other students to the extent where sports have become the foundation of some universities. In this regard, universities like Alabama and Indiana are appreciated more due to their prowess in football and basketball respectively instead of their academic excellence.
Reasons why college athletes should not be paid
Paying athletes would undermine the primary role of universities which is to offer education. The lifetime skills and education that athletes receive while in college cannot be equated to the amount they would receive were they to be paid.
Athletes are also aware of the contractual agreements with the universities when signing scholarship papers. The university caters for their upkeep and gives them an opportunity to play their preferred sport at a higher level as well as earn a degree. Monetary compensation is not included in the agreements and should not be a matter of contention during the student’s tenure in university.
The growth in intercollegiate athletics has resulted into enormous revenues for colleges and NCAA and also attractive payment packages for coaches. College athletes deserve a share of the money that they help to generate.
Published on November 26th, 2014