Paying Student Athletes

Paying Student Athletes

1. Introduction

At the other end of the spectrum, there have been situations where an athlete has exhausted all four years of eligibility and still has not obtained his or her degree. A lot of times, these athletes are considered “program changers,” and it is said by many that they are drafted to the pros from college. But there is an unfortunate number of college athletes who do not successfully “go pro” and may have to return to school to finish their degree at a later time. A rule was passed in 2001, now called the “degree completion award,” which permits former athletes who were at least 10 years removed from college to return and gain financial aid to finish their degree. This opportunity exemplifies the hardships of athletes who were unable to secure adequate income through their collegiate tenures and are forced to sustain regular employment. With so much money being generated in college sports, it is truly a shame that athletes of all economic backgrounds do not have the opportunity to get paid.

Moving onward, the NCAA is responsible for “enforcing” the Title IX statute, which prohibits gender-based discrimination between the sexes in educational institutions that are recipients of federal aid. There are numerous sanctions in college sports that have made a direct and indirect impact on the ability of athletes to receive proper compensation for their play. With the rise of economic hardships in today’s society, many athletes come from impoverished backgrounds and rely on financial aid in order to attend universities. Unfortunately for these poor families, their sons or daughters are no longer able to receive eligibility for endowments or subsidized educational loans. It is a known fact that partial athletic scholarships do not always pay in full, and many athletes are left paying out of their own pocket for tuitions, living expenses, and various other fees. An athletic scholarship is a transitory year-to-year agreement between athlete and coach, of whom decides the duration of an award (1-4 years) and whether to reduce, increase, or not renew an athlete’s aid. Due to the competitive nature of college sports, injuries are very common, and if an athlete endures a serious injury, there is a chance that his/her scholarship may not be renewed. Either way, an athletic scholarship is not guaranteed money, and not every athlete is given the full cost of attendance. So athletes who come from poor economic backgrounds must face the harsh reality that a scholarship is still not enough to scrape by. Because the NCAA has been reluctant to adjust scholarship amount or increase the number of full scholarships given, it is imperative for athletes of this nature to start earning an income.

Despite working hard and making a lot of money for their respective schools, college athletes are not financially compensated for their efforts. The NCAA, which is responsible for the welfare of the athletes it governs, has delayed proper compensation for far too long. In the bigger realm of things, college sports exist to bring in money for the NCAA, universities, and sponsors. It is a simple and underlying fact that without college athletes, there would be no money to be made. No coaches would have million-dollar salaries, no CBS would have multi-billion-dollar television deals, and most importantly, universities would not be able to afford all the luxury items that the athletes themselves are not permitted to have. So, if these athletes are responsible for generating massive amounts of revenue and, in the process, create a consumer market for their very own sport, why should they not be fairly compensated?

1.1. Overview of the issue

Overall, the issue is bounded by a vicious cycle. Revenue for major athletic programs is increasing dramatically and yet the quality of life for the student athletes is getting worse. As mentioned earlier, many of these students come from poor families and they are essentially living in poverty while the institution reaps the benefits of their work. In a seminar on running a profitable athletic program, University of Wisconsin Athletic Director Barry Alvarez made the following statement: “Every time I take a coach aside and tell him I can get him a better athlete if he morally and legally questionable, I feel like I’m selling my soul.” Many institutions are faced with this dilemma. They know that under the current system they are reaping the benefits of student athletes’ hard work and getting many of these athletes through questionable means. This is a sad state of affairs for the student athletes and also for these institutions. Unsatisfied with the current system, many student athletes have succumbed to nefarious methods in order to make ends meet. Compiled evidence suggests that many are not attending class and are being funneled into easy curriculum programs in order to stay eligible and better perform athletically. Ideally, these athletes would not have to make sacrifices in morals or education in order to subsidize their cost of attendance. It’s the opinions of the authors that a system involving direct payment with interests accrued until graduation (to ensure educational completion) for student athletes with a capped maximum compensation may be a solution to this problem.

Student athletes would end up with a distorted view of the value of their contribution to the institution. If they are paid salaries equal to the work they are doing or the revenue they bring to the institution, it sends the message that their first priority should be sport, not education. This is sending the wrong message to student athletes. It is true that they have more responsibilities than non-athletes, but they are still students. Finally, and possibly the most important issue in this debate, is the tax and Title XI implications of paying student athletes. Currently, athletic scholarships are considered grants-in-aid and taxed differently than salaries. The tax on a scholarship is much lower than on a salary. Any institution with a big-time athletic program would lose millions in revenue. Currently, Title XI mandates equal opportunity and support for male and female student athletes. This measure has been widely criticized but is still in place and if student athletes were paid, it would become a serious legal issue.

There are three main reasons the NCAA does not want to pay college athletes. The first, and most important, is that paying college athletes would make it very difficult to increase the salaries of coaches. In a predatory manner, profits would decrease and the value of the institutions would also decrease. In the competitive athletic and educational markets, this would be an unacceptable result. Colleges and universities also contest that by paying the athletes, they would be converting these students into employees. This would radically change the landscape of college sports. Players would no longer play for the love of the game. Instead, the recruitment process would become a bidding war in which only the richer institutions can afford to compete. Athletes would be less concerned with the quality of the education they are to receive and more concerned with finding the institution that will pay them the most money.

1.2. Importance of the topic

While it is against NCAA rules, there have been incidents where a student-athlete accepted money or illegal benefits in order to get by. This in turn can end the career of a student-athlete or even result in punishment of the team he/she plays for. The fact that a student-athlete would suffer punishment for an act most other students would never receive punishment for is both immoral and unfair.

The topic of paying student athletes is critically important due to the fact that student-athletes are in one of the most exploitative situations in the student-education system. Student-athletes are constantly practicing, playing in games, and keeping up with their studies. The time constraints of being a student-athlete are great and it is quite common for a student-athlete to go an entire season without being able to find the time for a job. This contributes to the fact that a student-athlete is more likely to go hungry than a regular student.

There are numerous schools which make a great deal of income from their athletic programs. From merchandise to televised games, college athletics is a multi-million dollar industry. Yet, many college athletes would struggle to buy themselves a meal. There is no simple solution to this problem as there are numerous stipulations and factors to consider.

Paying student-athletes is a major topic of debate in today’s society. The issue of whether or not to pay college athletes, a great deal of whom are only on scholarship, is of great importance as it affects millions of student-athletes and could potentially change the landscape of college sports.

2. Arguments in Favor of Paying Student Athletes

2.1. Fairness and equity

2.2. Compensation for time and effort

2.3. Financial benefits for athletes

3. Arguments Against Paying Student Athletes

3.1. Maintaining amateurism in college sports

3.2. Potential negative consequences

3.3. Impact on non-revenue sports

4. Current Compensation Models for Student Athletes

4.1. Athletic scholarships

4.2. Cost-of-attendance stipends

4.3. Other forms of compensation

5. Legal and Ethical Considerations

5.1. NCAA regulations

5.2. Title IX implications

5.3. Student-athlete rights

 

FAQs

1. Should college athletes be paid?
2. Do college athletes generate enough revenue to justify being paid?
3. How would paying college athletes affect the NCAA?
4. What are the potential benefits of paying college athletes?
5. What are the potential drawbacks of paying college athletes?
6. Should student athletes be considered employees or students?
7. How can we ensure that student athletes are compensated fairly?
8. Would paying college athletes professionalize college sports?
9. What impact would paying college athletes have on academics?
10. Is paying college athletes a step towards a minor league system for professional sports?