# data[].attributes.body
C-posted on March 19,2019
R-n/a
A-the url reveals that it is a .com
A-n/a
P-to inform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should College Student-Athletes Be Paid? Both Sides of the Debate

# data[].attributes.body
C-posted on March 11,2019
R-n/a
A-the url reveals that it is a .com
A-n/a
P-to inform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should college athletes be paid? Passions high on both sides of the debate

# data[].attributes.body
C-posted on March 23,2020
R-yes it is related to ,y topic and it is disagreeing with my claim
A-the article is made by Gene Demby and in the url it reveals that it is a .org
A-no I did not
P-to persuade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2009, the former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon took on the NCAA in a lawsuit that challenged the organization's ability to profit from the likenesses of college athletes in a video game. But as the case heated up, its stakes and scope began to sprawl, and opened a can of worms that threatened to upend one of the bedrock principles of college sports: amateurism.

"I wanted...to get the NCAA to at least admit that they were wrong in using former players likeness for profit, and that eventually branched off into current players owning their likeness and why they should." O'Bannon said to me on the Code Switch podcast. "Then it branched off later into actual current players getting paid from the universities and from the NCAA - not only basketball and football, but all athletes. Men and women."

The NCAA will make $771 million from the NCAA men's basketball tournament this year. The coaches at the biggest basketball schools have average salaries around $3 million. But most Americans are not on board with the idea that the men who play the games should be paid.

There's a racial split here: a majority of white people oppose paying college athletes while a majority of black people are in favor. As we learned on the podcast, racial resentment toward African-Americans is a very strong predictor of opposition to paying student-athletes. (And let's not forget the racial optics of the NBA's "one-and-done rule," by which most of the very best pro basketball prospects must spend a year masquerading as undergraduates because the NBA bars them from entry until they're a year out of high school.)

Ekow Yankah, a law professor at Cardozo Law School in New York City (and a huge fan of University of Michigan sports) offered a somewhat counterintuitive take on all this in New Yorker essay, " Why N.C.A.A. Athletes Shouldn't Be Paid." Yankah believes the current system is unfair and rife with exploitation, but believes that paying college athletes would essentially just entrench that arrangement.

Below is an edited version of our conversation with him on the Code Switch podcast episode, "The Madness of March."
Code Switch: Walk us through what you think might happen if we paid college athletes.
Ekow Yankah: I think paying college athletes is almost certainly bad for the athletes, terrible for the universities, and terrible for the sports they play. Other than that, it's a great idea. There's very little reason to think that a young athlete's life will be in any substantial way better if they become, so to speak, employees of the university.

Of course, many of these young men are under tremendous financial difficulty. I understand that a good number of them come from backgrounds which are difficult or even impoverished, and I'm well aware that the demands of big time college sports. But almost all college sports are so consuming that there seems something unfair about their having to balance these two projects.

The problem is that paying them doesn't help relieve that stress, paying them only makes it the case that that stress seems justified. Paying college athletes will almost certainly exacerbate a problem that has been going on for generations, where athletes of a certain number of sports are seen as ever more divided from the actual student body. They're seen as tangential. They're seen as not real students. And, indeed, given that they will then have to trade some of the minimal protections that they have as student athletes in order to simply be employees of the university, at least in some capacity. It seems like a pretty raw deal. All of this, by the way, is in exchange for what it would actually be, for the vast majority of athletes, a remarkably small amount of money on the free market.
CS: You're saying that the best players would get the most money but most players would get a pittance, if it was not equalized.
EY:The point is that it's awfully hard to project which kids will be superstars. So outside of the small number of "can't-miss" prospects, most kids will actually be paid on some scale that reflects the deep uncertainty about how good they'll be. And if we want to see what that looks like, we don't have to use our imagination. We can look at the minor leagues: minor league basketball, minor league baseball, and minor league hockey. Most of these young people are working nonstop. Most of them are just as talented, if not more talented than the vast majority of college athletes. Most of them are paid roughly what a Starbucks barista is paid. And in exchange for all that, they give up their opportunity to go to college, to pursue their dreams, and to turn out to not be a 20 year-old superstar but maybe a 40 year-old functioning adult.
CS: You say that there is a racial component to the way that people think about the minor league systems, and the prospect of paying student-athletes in men's basketball and football.
EY: One thing I worry about is this argument that, "well, these students aren't really students, anyway. So let's just pay them." And I do think that has a racial component. It's not entirely racial, of course. Part of it is that people are well aware and turned off by the huge financial incentive that the universities have.

But it's also true that there are a ton of different students on every college campus who are not straight-A math students. Somehow when we think about young black athletes and what they do, the sort of physical talent that they bring is not valued the same way that the ballerina's is or the chess player's is, or the musician's is - and I do find that worrying. I wonder why it is that these are multi-talented people whose skills may not be at its highest in science class is so quickly dismissed.

It's very clear that the true developmental league of the NBA is currently college basketball. The true developmental league of the NFL is entirely college football. And, somehow, the answer seems to be, "disconnect these students from education" rather than, "why don't we do what we do with other sports and set up a robust semi-pro league." One that would allow some students, those who are actually involved and engaged, to remain student-athletes and allow those for whom being a student athlete has no part of their project to go on to do what they want to do.
CS: But it seems like even with that system [where minor leagues for football and basketball exist alongside the traditional college system for those sports], there's still a lot of kids - who have no illusions about the fact that that they're not going to go pro, who will go to college, and who will try to make the most of their college experience. And that they will still generate tons of revenue for those colleges while they personally struggle financially because they can't be paid. I'm just curious what happens to those kids.

EY: I think that's a great question and it gets the heart of how complex and hard this is. If you're a student athlete who comes to Michigan well aware that you're never going to professional, then there's a real sense in my mind's eye that you will make the deal that makes being a student-athlete worth it. That is to say, that your education will actually be valuable to you in a way that matters. You'll be much less likely to be fooled or to trade on these fumes of dreams that allow school after school to give college athletes empty classes with no value that end up with empty degrees with no value.

I am not interested in a bunch of young men who work for three or four years for a university making a minor league salary. Which, if people actually looked at what that would be, is quite minimal. I'm interested in the next generation of doctors and lawyers and bankers. And in particular, for the sports that are dominated by African-American men, I'm deeply interested in the next generation of black doctors, black lawyers, and black bankers, rather than kids who are seduced into trading that for making spending money from 18 to 22.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2009, the former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon took on the NCAA in a lawsuit that challenged the organization's ability to profit from the likenesses of college athletes in a video game. But as the case heated up, its stakes and scope began to sprawl, and opened a can of worms that threatened to upend one of the bedrock principles of college sports: amateurism.

# data[].attributes.body
C-posted on October 29,2020
R-yes it is related to my topic and it is not picking to any side
A-the article was made by Colin Dwyer and in the url it reveals that it is a .org
A-no I did not
P-to inform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a surprise move, the NCAA says it intends to allow college athletes to earn compensation - but it says it's only starting to work out the details of how that would take place. The organization's board of governors said Tuesday that it had voted unanimously to permit student-athletes to benefit from the use of their name, image and likeness.

"We must embrace change to provide the best possible experience for college athletes," said Michael Drake, the NCAA board chair who is also president of Ohio State University. In a statement, Drake stressed the need for "additional flexibility" in the NCAA's approach.

Drake added, "This modernization for the future is a natural extension of the numerous steps NCAA members have taken in recent years to improve support for student-athletes, including full cost of attendance and guaranteed scholarships."

The timeline for implementing the changes was not immediately clear in the NCAA's statement.

The NCAA, the national governing body for collegiate athletics, said its decision followed input over the past few months from "current and former student-athletes, coaches, presidents, faculty and commissioners across all three divisions."

Notably, the decision follows California's adoption of a law that bans schools in the state from preventing student-athletes from accepting compensation from advertisers and allows them to hire agents. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the legislation late last month, calling it the "beginning of a national movement."

Indeed, it did spark a trend. Politicians in Illinois, New York, Florida and other states have introduced bills allowing endorsement deals for college athletes. And days after the California bill was signed, national politicians signaled they would push for something similar in Congress.

Amid this groundswell of political support for paying college athletes, the NCAA has quickly eased its public resistance to the idea. After initially pushing back hard on California's measure, the NCAA has recently been taking a more conciliatory tone, suggesting it would "move forward with ongoing efforts to make adjustments" to the organization's practices.

The NCAA has reported annual revenues topping $1 billion, largely on the strength of TV rights and marketing fees connected with its most prominent sports and events, such as the highly lucrative Division 1 men's basketball tournament.

And though the organization long argued that it was converting those revenues into scholarships and other opportunities for students, that line had lately attracted prominent skeptics - such as NFL cornerback Richard Sherman and NBA superstar LeBron James, who hosted Newsom's signing ceremony on his sports programming company la st month.

"As a national governing body, the NCAA is uniquely positioned to modify its rules to ensure fairness and a level playing field for student-athletes," organization President Mark Emmert said in a statement Tuesday. "The board's action today creates a path to enhance opportunities for student-athletes while ensuring they compete against students and not professionals."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NCAA Plans To Allow College Athletes To Get Paid For Use Of Their Names, Images

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The organization says it's just starting to work out the details of how athletes would be compensated. The governing body's decision Tuesday reverses course on its longstanding objection to the idea.

# data[].attributes.body
C-updated on February 20,2020
R-yes it is related to my topic and is disagreeing and agreeing with my claim
A-the article is powered by beelineweb.com and in the url it reveals that it is a .net
A-no I did not
P-to inform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Home > Articles > Should College Athletes Be Paid?

Few questions provoke as much debate as this one: Should college athletes be paid? It's a controversial issue with a long history of inspiring passionate discourse and even some lawsuits. But although some people are able to quickly answer the question with a simple yes or no, many of us find it difficult to formulate an opinion. (People on each side of the debate have many valid arguments.) It's a complex issue.

At its core, the dispute over whether college athletes should be paid comes down to questions about fairness and values-two things that tend to be very subjective and divisive. Plus, sports and academics often seem to have cross purposes. So much money is involved in big-time intercollegiate athletics that it leaves many people wondering whether major sports teams are taking priority over the fundamental mission of colleges and universities: education.

What's the answer? This article is your guide to the most common arguments on each side of the debate over paying college athletes. Pros and cons are presented to help you make up your own mind. But you'll also learn about a potential way forward that could address concerns on both sides. After all, one thing is clear: This controversy won't go away without significant changes to the status quo.

Pros: Why College Athletes Should Be Paid

It's easy to think of sports as being all about play-fun and games. But many of today's college and university athletes perceive their participation in team sports as more work than play. Although they may sometimes feel the kind of carefree joy that young kids experience when playing in the street or backyard, a lot of athletes at the college level too often feel like underappreciated employees-or worse.

Here's a big reason why: The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)-the organization that regulates college athletes-views student athletes as amateurs. In fact, in order to participate in an NCAA sport, you must agree to the organization's rules about amateurism. That means you can't receive any gifts, prizes, or monetary compensation (above the amount needed for expenses) related to your athletic talents. In short, you can't do things that are traditionally associated with being a professional athlete.

With that information in mind, check out five of the most commonly cited reasons why the answer to "Should NCAA athletes be paid?" is yes.

1. Removal of the exploitation factor

Although college athletes must maintain amateur status, many schools generate incredibly large revenues from their talents. In fact, head football and basketball coaches at several colleges and universities earn multi-million-dollar salaries, meaning that a lot of them have the highest-paying public jobs in their states. And a lot of schools continue to pay millions upon millions of dollars for lavish new stadium expansions or luxurious facilities for their athletic departments. Simply put, there's big money in intercollegiate sports-primarily in football and basketball.

According to a report on where the money comes from, the NCAA generates about $867.5 million each year just from the marketing and television rights for the Division I Men's Basketball Tournament, also known as "March Madness." It generates another $177.9 million from ticket sales to championship games. The various Division I athletic conferences also derive substantial revenues from broadcasting rights and royalties, as do many individual schools.

So, are college athletes paid any of that money? Not directly. Some of the money is used to help fund athletic scholarships, services, and related expenses. But student athletes aren't paid any salaries or bonuses, even when their teams perform well and generate extra revenue. They also aren't allowed to make money from their limited celebrity status (such as by selling autographed jerseys, endorsing products, or doing local commercials). Meanwhile, their coaches-as well as some administrators-may receive sizable bonuses for having a winning season (on top of their already-large salaries).

Is that fair? It's true that many student athletes receive scholarships that cover their tuition, fees, books, and room and board. They also may receive "cost of attendance" stipends to cover other living expenses (such as transportation). But coaches usually get to decide who gets full-ride scholarships, and for how long.

Some student athletes receive four-year scholarships that are guaranteed, even if they get injured or underperform athletically. But many others receive one-year scholarships that must be renewed each year, without any guarantees. And a lot of athletes only get partial scholarships. (At NCAA Division I schools, the average scholarship for athletics is only $14,270 for men and $15,162 for women.)

Of course, scholarship amounts are highest for athletes in the major revenue-generating sports (football and basketball). Even so, an argument can be made that players in those sports deserve more compensation since it is their performances that help pay for huge coaching salaries, lavish facilities, and less-prominent sports at their schools. They provide highly popular entertainment and amazing promotional value, but their compensation is often out of proportion with that value. So the norms of capitalism would dictate that many college football and basketball players are owed more for what they help generate. After all, fans are buying tickets and tuning in to watch them play. They are the primary sources of those big revenues.

In addition, when it comes to NCAA football and basketball, a very large portion of the athletes have grown up disadvantaged. Their backgrounds often include poverty, dangerous neighborhoods, and repeated childhood trauma. In a significant number of cases, at least one of their parents has been imprisoned. To make matters worse, their public schools may have been poorly funded. It all adds up to getting a poor education, without stability at home, and having few opportunities outside of their athletic abilities. For them, college football or basketball may look like the only chance at a better future, as long as they're gifted enough. So they don't play sports so much for the joy as for the desperate need to climb out of poverty and help their families.

2. Fair compensation for the full-time expectations

A lot of student athletes who come from disadvantaged backgrounds are unprepared for college academics. But even if athletes are capable of handling college-level classes, they may not have the time necessary for doing well in them. That's because college sports (especially the major ones) frequently require athletes to spend as much as 40 hours a week practicing, training, and competing. In many situations, that time commitment extends to the off-season.

The result is that a lot of student athletes have trouble making it to graduation. Some coaches and athletic departments even steer their most valuable athletes into the easiest majors possible while providing "support" that any reasonable person might perceive as cheating. So a student athlete may have a great scholarship, but he or she may not be in a position to actually take advantage of its educational benefits.

Plus, when all of your time must be spent going to class and fulfilling your athletic requirements, no time is left for being able to earn extra money through a regular job outside of athletics (if your scholarship even permits that sort of thing). It can make for a pretty limited existence.

3. Tangible recognition of the risks

On average, more than 210,000 injuries are sustained by NCAA student athletes each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Overall, they are injured at a rate of six injuries per 1,000 competitions or practices. Men's football games have the highest injury rate (nearly 40 injuries per 1,000 competitions). Some of the most common types of injuries include muscle strains, ligament sprains, bone fractures, dislocations, and concussions.

As mentioned above, NCAA Division I colleges and universities are allowed to offer four-year, guaranteed scholarships. However, coaches generally have a limited number of those scholarships to offer (usually to the most heavily recruited athletes). So, many student athletes only receive partial or one-year, renewable scholarships. In those cases, an athlete can have his or her scholarship withdrawn or non-renewed after suffering a catastrophic injury or being cut from a team.

The effects of a severe injury-or repeated injuries or head traumas-can last a lifetime. College athletes in injury-prone sports are risking their long-term health and well-being.

4. Practical acknowledgement of the long odds of making it to the pros

People who believe that college athletes should not be paid often point out that professional athletes in the major sports can make millions of dollars. So they think that student athletes just need to work hard and remain patient for their future rewards. But that's like telling someone to keep providing a valuable service for free or low pay because they'll win the lottery as soon as their contract expires. In the vast majority of cases, that simply won't happen. It's a fictional golden carrot.

Exceedingly few college athletes ever get the opportunity to play for a professional sports franchise. In fact, according to a report on the estimated probabilities of doing so, only about 1.5 percent of all NCAA football players get drafted into the National Football League (NFL). When it comes to men's basketball, only 1.1 percent of NCAA athletes in the sport get drafted by teams in the National Basketball Association (NBA). And only 0.9 percent of NCAA women's basketball players get drafted into the Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA).

5. A potential end to the seedy underbelly of college sports

Right now, a lot of the most talented and sought-after athletes get secret offers for under-the-table perks. As an athlete, it can be very tempting to accept those offers, especially if you've had a disadvantaged upbringing. That's one reason why, over the decades, the world of intercollegiate athletics has been full of scandals involving schools and boosters illicitly paying players, hosting sex and alcohol parties for potential recruits, or providing other illegal or rule-breaking incentives.

So the NCAA's rules about amateurism effectively result in some college athletes getting paid in secret, often by shady, unethical people who don't have the best long-term interests of the athletes in mind. That's why those who are in favor of improving college athlete compensation frequently argue that everything could be brought "above ground." By lifting the ban on pay for student athletes, transactions could happen out in the open, which could help drive away many of the shadiest elements of college sports and better protect the athletes' best interests.

Cons: Why Paying College Athletes Might Be a Bad Idea

The idea of college athletes being paid certainly seems reasonable when you consider all the factors above. But when you weigh additional factors like those below, you may arrive at a different conclusion. In fact, a lot of people think that the NCAA's rules for amateurism shouldn't be tampered with. They believe that treating student athletes like professionals could do much more harm than good. It could have negative consequences that ripple into other areas of higher education and impact non-athletes.

Here are some of the biggest reasons why many people argue that college athletes should not get paid:

1. The extra financial burden to schools

There's no doubt that a lot of college and university athletic departments are big, big spenders. But did you know that a huge number of them actually lose money when all is said and done? It's true, even at the top level of NCAA sports.

For example, in 2016, about 46 percent of football programs at Division I FBS schools spent more money on expenses than they generated in revenues. For men's basketball, that number was 53 percent. And for women's basketball, it was 100 percent. (Keep in mind that football and basketball are, by far, the largest generators of revenue for most college athletic departments. Other sports pale in comparison and almost always lose money.)

Despite losing money on sports, most schools in Division I athletics feel forced into spending a lot on their athletic programs in order to have any chance of competing with the relatively few schools that turn a profit from their sports. The flashiest spending is often a desperate ploy to generate more revenue. In order to balance their budgets, many athletic departments must receive non-athletic funds from their institutions-money that might have otherwise gone toward educational programs. (Schools will provide the money to keep their athletic programs going because they believe that sports teams serve as great marketing in the quest for higher enrollments.)

But that's why paying student athletes could be so problematic. College athletic departments may not be able to handle the extra financial burden. In order to stay competitive and recruit the best players possible, cuts may need to be made elsewhere. So, outside of football and basketball, other sports teams could be put on the chopping block. And if player salaries or bonuses get too high, then some educational programs may also get cut.

2. The great value of existing student-athlete compensation

Why should college athletes be paid salaries or bonuses when many of them already receive incredibly valuable scholarships that most non-athletes would feel super lucky to have? They get to attend school at a greatly reduced cost thanks to the money generated by students who pay tuition and fees, the generosity of alumni, and, in a lot of cases, the taxes paid by the public. According to NCAA scholarship data, more than 150,000 college and university athletes at NCAA Division I and II schools receive sports-related scholarships collectively worth over $2.9 billion each year.

Those student athletes are truly fortunate, especially when you consider the rarity of college athletic scholarships. (Out of all the high school athletes who graduate each year, only about two percent of them receive scholarships for college sports, as revealed by scholarship data from the NCAA.) These rare scholarships open the door to higher education for young people who may not have access to it without their exceptional athletic abilities.

The most athletically gifted of those students often receive full-ride scholarships that cover all tuition, fees, books, meals, and housing. They also frequently include monthly stipends to help cover the cost of various other living expenses. For a lot of college athletes, benefits and perks can also include things like:

Free travel opportunities

Free academic tutoring

Free athletic shoes and clothing

Free or subsidized medical coverage

Free national or regional exposure to TV audiences

Expert athletic and leadership coaching

Chances to meet and form relationships with people all over the country

It's easy to see why college athletes are often perceived as spoiled and coddled. After all, that's a whole lot of opportunity that isn't available to the average college student in America. Thousands upon thousands of bright, academically gifted students never receive those perks even though they are just as deserving. Plus, an athlete's ability to play sports at a high level will end when he or she is still young, but the benefits of receiving a college or university education can last a lifetime. Those who dismiss the educational opportunity afforded by their athletic scholarships are often blind to the full long-term value of it.

But if you removed the scholarship model and paid salaries to college athletes instead, it's doubtful they would wind up with such a good deal. After all, they would owe taxes on those earnings. And they would likely have to fund their own education since their salaries may disqualify them for financial aid (other than unsubsidized student loans). In addition, they may need to hire accountants to help them prepare tax returns and keep track of their financial situation. At the end of the day, they may be significantly worse off under a salary model than they are under the scholarship model.

3. Erosion of the educational mission of colleges and universities

Should college athletes get paid if it means that institutions of higher learning will need to operate more like professional sports franchises than schools? Colleges and NCAA sports are already awkward bedfellows. But if student athletes start being paid, then the question becomes why schools should even bother with the "student" part. At that point, the athletes just become employees-promoters of their schools' brands. There would be little incentive to make athletes study. Even those athletes who chose to study would be tempted to chase dollars rather than degrees.

College sports were never meant to be anything more than extracurricular activities. The core purpose of colleges and universities is to educate students, not pay and develop athletes. School is for learning. Professional sports are for getting paid. They are fundamentally different entities.

That said, plenty of student athletes are committed to being students first. They sacrifice many hours to practice, train, and compete-without any notion that they'll ever be professional athletes. They choose to be athletes because they love it. But they don't lose sight of their main motivations for pursuing higher education itself.

If "student athletes" don't have that kind of commitment to their own education, then there's really no point to keeping them as part of their schools' student bodies. They make a mockery of higher education and the dedication that real students demonstrate.

4. Distortion of the true value of sports

It's hard to see why sports are important when money becomes such a big aspect of athletes' motivations. The drive for dollars can blind an athlete to the rewards that he or she is already reaping by participating in a sport. For example, here are some of the best non-monetary perks and outcomes of being a competitive athlete:

Fun physical exercise

A huge range of physical and mental health benefits

Better muscle tone (and overall physical attractiveness)

Higher confidence and self-esteem

Greater capacity for cooperation

More resilience (i.e., ability to bounce back from failure)

Better personal discipline

A greater sense of fairness

The ability to handle defeat gracefully

Greater appreciation and respect for the goals of others

In short, college sports offer great ways to develop personal character, mental resilience, and physical vitality. They also provide a lighter form of entertainment that people can bond over, sharing the thrills of healthy competition and unknown outcomes. When appreciated for their true value, sports can provide athletes with a major boost toward a successful future.

That's why many people fear that the things that make college sports great will get lost or distorted if student athletes start being treated as paid professionals. It could be bad for athletes and society as a whole.

5. Complications and unintended consequences

According to many people who support the current mission of the NCAA, paying athletes in college could open up a Pandora's box of problematic questions and issues. Here are some examples:

How do you decide what a particular athlete is worth? Would each athlete receive the same amount, or would it be an open-market system? How often would athletes get paid? Where would the funds come from? The whole thing could be a logistical mess that colleges and universities are ill-equipped to deal with.

Paying different amounts of money to athletes in different programs could potentially subject schools to lawsuits for Title IX violations. Title IX is a federal law that ensures equal opportunities for people of both genders when it comes to any educational programs or activities that receive financial assistance from the federal government. An open-market pay system would clash with such provisions. For instance, it could be problematic if men's basketball players got paid more than women's basketball players even though men's programs usually generate more revenue for their schools.

In an open-market system, each college athlete would have to sign a unique business contract. But that kind of system could leave many athletes open to real exploitation unless they can afford a good attorney or honest sports agent to negotiate on their behalf. Plus, based on supply and demand, the most gifted athletes would naturally see their salaries rise while the more marginally talented athletes may see their salaries fall to levels that make them "second-class" participants on their teams.

In a contract-based pay system, many athletes may choose where to play based on which schools provide the highest offers. And unless schools offer multi-year agreements, a lot of athletes could decide to transfer to higher-paying schools each year or hold out for more money. College athletes may also decide to unionize and bargain collectively for more money than colleges and universities can realistically afford. That could lead to lengthy and disruptive protests or lockouts on school campuses.

College sports programs operate as non-profit entities. But trying to pass off athlete salaries as charitable expenses could potentially lead to a loss of that non-profit status and expose athletic departments to taxes they never had to pay before.

Few college students know how to manage their money well. Scholarships at least provide some safeguards against financial irresponsibility since they can only be used for education-related expenses. But if athletes get paid like employed workers, they'll be free to make poor decisions with their money, which could negatively impact their future well-being. Schools would need to make greater efforts to educate their athletes about financial management and maybe even provide financial mentors.

A Possible Solution

All kinds of ideas have been floated for addressing the heated issue of college athlete compensation. Some people believe that nothing needs to change. Others think that only a radical transformation of the current college athletic system will solve the problems. But maybe the answer lies somewhere in the middle. And maybe we also need to address relevant issues outside of the college sports system.

Let's start by acknowledging that, for a lot of young athletes, college sports represent the only realistic paths to a better life. Whether because of poor schools, poverty, home instability, or childhood trauma, they simply don't have the same options as more privileged young people. Until we, as citizens, get more serious about demanding an end to poverty, a fix for the broken justice system, and major improvement to K-12 education in poor communities, we can't pretend that all college athletes have a real choice in whether to compete.

At the same time, we can't simply turn our colleges and universities into professional minor sports leagues. Their top priority should always be education. Every student athlete should be allowed to be a student first. That means limiting the number of hours required for training, practicing, and competing to something much more reasonable-perhaps a maximum of 20 hours per week instead of 40. It also means limiting the amount of time away from campus for travel and competition. (Yes, the NCAA and athletic conferences will need to schedule fewer games.)

In addition, something should probably be done to curb the excessive spending on coaches' salaries. In a system that's supposed to be about amateur athletics, it seems unethical to pay coaches millions of dollars a year. But it will probably take a small change to federal antitrust law to make something like a universal limit on coach pay possible. If it could be accomplished, it would allow more colleges and universities to balance the budgets of their athletic departments and perhaps invest more money into long-term health care for athletes who leave school with sports-related injuries.

Finally, the heart of the matter: Instead of paying student athletes directly, colleges and the NCAA should follow a model similar to the U.S. Olympic system. Amateur Olympic athletes are allowed to earn money from autographed memorabilia, endorsements, speaking gigs, and other sources. College athletes should be able to do the same thing. They should be able to profit from their own identities and make money in ways that are legal and in keeping with their abilities. After all, other students aren't restricted from making money from their talents while enrolled in school. It happens in art, music, theater, journalism, and other areas all the time. Why should athletes be any different?

Ever Considered Going to a College Where Sports Aren't Necessarily a Top Priority?

College sports are exciting, but they can also sometimes be a distraction if you aren't an eager spectator or participant. That's why a lot of students choose to attend schools that have a stronger focus on providing training and education for good careers. You can prepare for the future you want without necessarily involving yourself in college athletics. Plus, you can probably get your education online or closer to home. Check out some of the possibilities right now by entering your zip code in the school finder below!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should College Athletes Be Paid? You May Not Like the Answer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should college athletes be paid salaries or bonuses for the time they dedicate to training, practicing, and competing in NCAA sports? Discover why the answer isn't as simple as you might believe. Learn about the pros and cons of paying student athletes and find out what kind of system may be better.

# data[].attributes.body
C-n/a
R-n/a
A-the url reveals that it is a .com
A-n/a
P-to entertain

# data[].attributes.body
C-n/a
R-n/a
A-the url reveals that it is a .com
A-n/a
P-n/a

# data[].attributes.body
C-posted in 2020
R-yes it does relate to my topic and is both agreeing and disagreeing with my claim
A-the author is Natalie Regoli and in the url it reveals it is a .org
A-no I did not
P-to inform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
College sports generate billions of dollars in revenues in the United States every year. In 2016, CBS and Turner Broadcasting extended their contact with the NCAA Division 1 basketball tournament with an 8-year, $8.8 billion extension. That placed the value of March Madness at more than $1 billion per year for the first time in history.

The extension in 2016 followed a 2010 contract which offered a 14-year agreement to broadcast the annual tournament for $10.8 billion.

The NCAA states that 90% of the revenues generated through the games played by student athletes go into services, programs, or direct distribution opportunities which directly benefit member conferences and schools. Aside from equipment access, medical care, scholarships, and travel support, student athletes receive zero compensation for their participation in their chosen support.By definition, paying the athlete would make them a professional. On the other hand, it could be argued that scholarships are an alternative form of payment already being provided. Because of the revenues their activities generate, the pros and cons of paying college athletes are closely scrutinized.

List of the Pros of Paying College Athletes

1. It encourages healthier student athletes.
Paying college athletes for their participation in sports eliminates the need for them to find outside employment to support themselves. Many scholarships may offer tuition, room, and board coverage in return for participating in a sport, but not every student athlete qualifies for a scholarship. Walk-on players have their images used to generate revenues for the NCAA too for zero compensation. Paying all athletes would allow them to focus on academics and athletics without worrying about making ends meet.

2. It provides relief for families.
Families are often tasked with providing direct support for their student athletes to abide by current payment rules. Student athletes are not even permitted to autograph items, or sell certain personal memorabilia, as a way to generate revenues. Outside of student loans for partial scholarship or walk-on athletes, it is up to each family to pay for the student to be at the school. Paying the athlete would provide some financial relief to these families, which may not have the funds to make long-term supports.

3. It provides another incentive to play.
Most student athletes who play in college never become professional athletes. In the NCAA, fewer than 2% of college athletes go on to become professional athletes. Most become professionals in their chosen field of study. By offering a stipend for playing, much like a work-study program, students would gain another incentive to become involved in athletics. They could use these funds to pay for costs not covered by a scholarship. Students could save the money for a first apartment outside of college. If a student knows they will not go pro, they may decide to give up sports instead, which would ultimately reduce the income generated by collegiate sporting activities.

4. It would stop corruption.
Despite rules preventing such actions, coaches, shoe executives, agents, apparel representatives, and other industry professionals often conspire to pay recruits to join a specific college. It is a practice that stays out of the public eye because everyone involved benefits if no one knows about the payments. Using money to influence a high school student to select a specific program and hire a specific business manager is felony-level conduct. Allowing college athletes to be paid would help to limit this issue, which would reduce investigation costs across the board.

5. It would attract better athletes who stay in programs longer.
The goal of attending a college program should be to earn a degree. Academics should be the top priority. For the athletes that do have the ability to play professionally, going to college is a stop on the journey toward a good paycheck. If these athletes could be paid while they are attending a college program, then they would be more likely to stick with the program to eventually earn their degree. They could then be drafted into a professional league once they've completed their courses.

6. It could lower tuition rates.
Paying student athletes does not mean that the costs for everyone would automatically go up. For some institutions, the costs could actually go down. Increased competition for the best athletes would create improved programming at colleges across the country. Athletic facilities would be upgraded to encourage enrollment. Although the richest institutions would always be able to offer more, at the end of the day, most people would benefit from lower costs because the system would require more efficiencies to remain productive.

7. It could create college credits that could be used toward graduation.
One of the benefits of work-study programs is that it can supplement the credits earned while supplementing college tuition costs. Athletes could use some of the concepts and skills they learn within their program to enhance their educational experience. Depending on the setup of the program, it could even help athletes graduate with a degree in their chosen faster.

List of the Cons of Paying College Athletes

1. It would eliminate the line between amateur and professional sports.
The reason why student athletes are not currently paid, according to the NCAA, is that it would eliminate the separation between amateurism and professionalism in sports. If that line is eliminated, then the links between an education at a college and sports played at a college would weaken. That would cause the athletes who don't eventually turn pro to suffer because they'd have fewer opportunities available to them.

2. It would prioritize athleticism over academics.
Although students would still be required to meet academic standards to qualify for academic programs, paying athletes for sports participation would likely shift personal priorities. They would be required to maintain their position on the team to benefit from the income, much like they are required to do so now to maintain a scholarship. Athletes would choose programs where they would be paid the most, instead of choosing programs where they could learn the most.

3. It would become a burden on taxpayers.
The idea of paying college athletes a salary comes out of the revenues which are generated by sporting activities. In reality, much of that money is already used by the conferences and schools to host games or conduct events already. To pay athletes a salary, most public institutions would need to ask taxpayers for monetary support. Private institutions would likely increase tuition rates to meet the financial obligations involved. Those burdens could stop some students from enrolling for academic purposes, which would create lower-skill workers over time throughout the country.

4. It would burden smaller schools.
Would all student athletes receive the same amount of pay, no matter which school they chose to attend? If so, then there would be an undue burden placed on smaller schools that compete at higher levels. If pay levels are allowed to be tiered, based on where a college competes, then is it fair for one athlete to be paid more than another because they were accepted into a "superior" program? There are plenty of structural questions that would need to be resolved before paying college athletes became the norm.

5. It could encourage schools to cut other programs.
Many schools use the funds from their athletics programs to fund other programs and activities. If those funds are ordered to be used as a salary for college athletes, then the other programs and services might suffer because of it. That would degrade the quality of life available on-campus at many institutions. Depending on what programs were cut, it could even impact the safety of students over a long time period.

6. It could create issues of paycheck equality.
If athletics is treated like a work-study program, there could be issues of equality in pay that would need to be evaluated. Some students in other programs would likely not earn the same amount as an athlete for their work-study program. When everything comes down to dollars and cents, there could be more discrimination put into college campuses by paying college athletes than the benefits such an activity would provide.

7. It would create opportunities to unionize.
Student athletes who are receiving a salary would be classified as employees. That would give student athletes the right to unionize in many states. That would create conflicts between schools and athletes in a manner that is similar to the conflicts seen between owners and professional athletes. Some participants would still be minors, which means their parents would need to be involved in contract negotiations. New levels of administrative complication would be incorporated into the educational system, which would further increase costs.

Paying student athletes creates a number of variables which offer plenty of pros and cons to think about. Most people would agree that athletes should be compensated when profits are generated by their likeness and activities. Most would also agree that university programs should emphasize academics over athletics. Finding a balance, using key points like these, is the only way progress on this issue will be obtained.

Blog Post Author Credentials
Louise Gaille is the author of this post. She received her B.A. in Economics from the University of Washington. In addition to being a seasoned writer, Louise has almost a decade of experience in Banking and Finance. If you have any suggestions on how to make this post better, then go here to contact our team.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
14 Should College Athletes Be Paid Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
College sports generate billions of dollars in revenues in the United States every year. In 2016, CBS and Turner Broadcasting extended their contact with the NCAA Division 1 basketball tournament with an 8-year, $8.8 billion extension. That placed the value of March Madness at more than $1 billion per year for the first time in history.

# data[].attributes.body
C-n/a
R-n/a
A- the url reveals that it is a .com
A-n/a
P-to entertain

# data[].attributes.body
C-n/a
R-n/a
A-the url reveals that it is a .com
A-n/a
P-to entertain

# data[].attributes.body
C-n/a
R-n/a
A-the url reveals that it is a .com
A-n/a
P-to entertain

# data[].attributes.body
C-posted in July 18, 2011
R-yes it does relate to my topic and it is agreeing with my claim
A-the author is Michael Wilbon and in the url it reveals that is is a .com
A-no I did not
P-to presuade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Michael Wilbon, Pardon the Interruption co-hostJul 18, 2011, 03:00 AM ET

Close
Michael Wilbon is a featured columnist for ESPN.com and ESPNChicago.com. He is the longtime co-host of "Pardon the Interruption" on ESPN and appears on the "NBA Sunday Countdown" pregame show on ABC, in addition to ESPN. You can follow him on Twitter: @RealMikeWilbon

I used to argue vehemently against paying college athletes. Tuition, room, board and books were compensation enough. And even if, increasingly, it wasn't enough and virtually every kid who accepted a scholarship was in the red before Christmas of his freshman year, the notion of pay-for-play was at best a logistical nightmare. Where exactly would the money come from? How could you pay college football players but not baseball players or members of the women's field hockey team? And how in the world would you pay men in a way that wouldn't violate Title IX?

So you know what caused me to do a 180 on the issue? That $11 billion deal -- OK, it's $10.8 billion to be exact -- between the NCAA and CBS/Turner Sports for March Madness between 2011 and 2024. We're talking $11 billion for three weekends of television per year. On top of that, there's a new four-year deal with ESPN that pays the BCS $500 million. So, if those two deals were worth, say, a combined $10 billion instead of $11.3 billion, would the games not be televised? Would the quality of the broadcasts or the coverage or the staging of the events be somehow diminished? What if people in the business of money took $1.3 billion off the top, invested it, sheltered it and made it available to provide a stipend to college athletes, how could anybody stand on principal and argue against paying the people who make the events possible in the first place?

Let me declare up front I wouldn't be the slightest bit interested in distributing the funds equitably or even paying every college athlete. I'm interested in seeing the people who produce the revenue share a teeny, tiny slice of it. That's right, football and men's basketball players get paid; lacrosse, field hockey, softball, baseball, soccer players get nothing. You know what that's called? Capitalism. Not everything is equal, not everything is fair. The most distinguished professor at the University of Alabama won't make $5.9 million in his entire tenure in Tuscaloosa; Nick Saban will make that this year. So I don't want to hear that it's "unfair" to pay the quarterback of Alabama more than all the sociology students in the undergraduate college.

Using the inability to distribute the funds equally as an impediment is an excuse, a rather intellectually lazy one at that. Nothing about the way hundreds of millions of dollars is distributed is equitable or even fair. The BCS' new deal with ESPN was based, in part, on paying more money to schools/conferences with regard to what has been called "population centers." Of the $174 million distributed from five bowl games, 83.4 percent went to six conferences in 2011. In question right now is whether the BCS even conducts its business dealings in a manner consistent with principles expressed in federal anti-trust laws. So, the equitable-application excuse for not paying athletes doesn't hold water; at the very least there's a level of hypocrisy here that ought to make the opponents of paying athletes uncomfortable.

Don't get me wrong, paying players out of individual athletic department budgets is beyond impractical; it's probably not feasible. Because so many athletic departments run at a deficit, it's difficult to make the case that schools should pay regular salaries to athletes, even football players who produce more income than anybody. But it's another thing entirely for the students who play for revenue-producing teams (at UConn and the University of Tennessee, this would include the women's basketball teams) to be somehow compensated from the lucrative television/radio/Internet rights fees they make wholly possible.

It's commendable that the NCAA has paid millions into a fund for in-need athletes to cover clothing purchases, emergency travel and medical expenses. There's also a special assistance fund and a student-athlete opportunity fund. Why can't hundreds of millions of dollars be directed into those, and in turn make money much more accessible to athletes for the kinds of regular day-to-day expenses regular college students pay by working jobs that are off-limits to intercollegiate athletes?

In the meantime, if they cannot be paid outright, surely the scholarship athletes should be able to engage in entrepreneurial pursuits that currently leads to costly NCAA investigations that have proven to be mostly a waste of time since, one, such activities historically haven't been checked and, two, the kids who commit the "infractions" aren't effectively punished. Their revelations, short of Heisman Trophy winners having to return their statues, wind up penalizing only the kids and coaches who remain on the team and in the vast majority of cases have done nothing to merit a penalty themselves.

If somebody is willing to give A.J. Green $750 or $1,000 or even $2,500 for his Georgia Bulldogs jersey, fine, good. If one of his teammates, a tackle, can fetch only $50 for his jersey, then it'll be a good marketing lesson for both of them. It's called supply and demand, and if both men are fortunate enough to reach the NFL it'll be a lesson worth learning because that dynamic will exist their entire careers. If a soccer player can't get a dime for his jersey, well, there's a realization in that, too.

The question from the opponents of paying college athletes inevitably comes back, "What would stop a star player from agreeing to shake hands at a local car dealership for $50,000?" The answer is, nothing. If a car dealer wants to strike that deal then good for the player in question. If a music student goes out in the summer and earns 50 grand, who objects? Who even knows? The student-musician is no less a college student because he struck a lucrative deal. Neither is the student-journalist who spends his nights writing freelance stories and picking up as much money along the way as he can.

If the student as athlete can find a way, he/she should be able to endorse products, to have paid-speaking gigs, to sell memorabilia, as Allen Sack, the author and professor at the college of business at the University of New Haven has suggested in recent years. The best college athletes in the two revenue-producing sports have always been worth much more than tuition, room, board and books. The best football and basketball players in the Big Ten have produced to the degree that a television network has become the model for every conference in America, a network worth at least tens of millions of dollars to the member institutions. Yet, no player can benefit from that work. The players have become employees of the universities and conferences as much as students -- employees with no compensation, which not only violates common decency but perhaps even the law.
Michael Wilbon is a featured columnist for ESPN.com and ESPNChicago.com. He is the longtime co-host of "Pardon the Interruption" on ESPN and appears on the "NBA Sunday Countdown" pregame show on ABC in addition to ESPN. Wilbon joined ESPN.com after three decades with The Washington Post, where he earned a reputation as one of the nation's most respected sports journalists.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You don't have to pay all of the players all of the same. But not giving athletes a cut of the billion-dollar deals they've helped happen? That's incredibly wrong.