# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Imagine working for countless hours, six days a week, then putting on multiple performances just so someone else can be paid billions. That is the life of a college athlete. College athletes do not get any recognition or benefits that they deserve for the revenue they bring to their university and the surrounding community. For some college athletes, things such as tuition, gear, recovery items, and other necessities needed to perform are not free or cheap. Many college athletes pay money out of their own pockets to be able to perform at the level they need to, but who gets all the financial benefits? The NCAA and the university itself.

According to USA Today, the NCAA had a revenue of $1.1 Billion from 2017 NCAA college sporting events. How much of this money went to the college athletes who are the ones physically and mentally performing generating this money? Zero. However, in a legal way, college athletes who are playing at Division 1 or Division 2 schools are being paid with full scholarship tuition. It is fair to say that, paid tuition is equivalent to being a paid athlete. This leaves out Division 3 college athletes who put in just as much hard work and time to be able to perform at a high level and generate money for the NCAA and their university, but do not receive full rides. At Division 3 colleges, the only scholarship that is allowed is academic, not athletic. I interviewed Walker McDonald, a current college athlete at Greenville University, and asked him the question of, should college athletes get paid for playing for their university? Walker said, "I believe college athletes should be paid based on how much money they get from scholarships...athletes should at least make enough money to cover their tuition if the scholarship doesn't."

Media by NCAA Money Revenue.

Media by All NCAA College Sports.

College athletes have to sign contracts by the NCAA stating that they will not receive any money from anyone while they are playing for the university. I do not dismiss the fact that playing for a university is a privilege and not a right, college athletes have many experiences and memories that are priceless in life. However, times are hard for many students, and college athletes have a bit more expenses when it comes to necessities, they need to be able to perform at high levels. I was able to interview Josias Parker, an alumna of the men's basketball team at Greenville University. I asked him if college athletes should get paid for their time playing for their university. Josias replied by saying, "I definitely think college athletes should get paid, because universities make a lot of money from sports, sports bringing a majority of income, especially for small schools like Greenville University. Athletes should get paid especially because college is a tough time with money, so paying money to athletes will give college athletes more relief and will try to help them and aid them with whatever they need, like necessities they need to perform well."

There is a good compromise with those who disagree with the idea of college athletes getting paid, instead of a set salary like professionals. The very least college athletes could receive is donations from fans or other organizations. College athletes are told to treat their sport as a job and be professional about every aspect of the game. However, like waiters and waitresses get tips for doing a good job, why can't athletes be rewarded the same way?

Even without pay, the very least college athletes could receive is a guarantee that their scholarship will not be taken away if they are hurt playing. If we are going the route that an athlete's pay is their scholarship, then it shouldn't be able to be taken away when they are no longer "useful" for the university. Athletes like Kyle Hardrick who lost his basketball scholarship at Oklahoma University after he tore his meniscus in his knee are examples that universities only care about the ability of the player to perform. If universities only care about the usefulness of the athlete, then there should be guaranteed tuition or pay allowing the athlete to finish college even after being injured and unable to play. Student college athletes should get paid, especially after seeing the details of what they go through to perform at the high caliber level they compete at.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imagine working for countless hours, six days a week, then putting on multiple performances just so someone else can be paid billions. That is the life of a college athlete. College athletes do not get any recognition or benefits that they deserve for the revenue they bring to their university and the surrounding community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
College athletes are worth millions. Should they be paid like it ...
500 × 399 - 44k - jpg
sites.psu.edu

Let's Start Paying College Athletes - The New York Times
600 × 449 - 66k - jpg
nytimes.com

College athletes are worth millions. Should they be paid like it ...
640 × 640 - 89k - jpg
sites.psu.edu

Student athletes should get paid, college students say
1400 × 950 - 307k - jpg
cnbc.com

Auchter's Art: Should college athletes get pay for play ...
2394 × 1754 - 2672k - png
michiganradio.org

Two-thirds of American adults think college athletes should be ...
640 × 419 - 76k - png
footballscoop.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
college athletes should be paid - Google Search

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
College athletes are worth millions. Should they be paid like it ...500 × 399 - 44k - jpgsites.psu.edu Let's Start Paying College Athletes - The New York Times600 × 449 - 66k - jpgnytimes.com College athletes are worth millions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
During this year's NCAA tournament, there has been obvious speculation about college athletes and the significant amount of revenue they have been bringing to their schools and the NCAA. This isn't something new. This is something that has been a growing issue in recent years. Not just a regular issue at that, but a structurally racial issue on many levels. African Americans make up the majority of college athletes at the top levels in three major sports: men's and women's basketball (Division I) and the upper FBS level of the NCAA's Division I, according to Travis Walton's HuffPost article "Black Americans Support Paying College Athletes. White People? Not So Much." These also happen to be the highest revenue-generating sports in college athletics.

Race isn't the only issue, but statistically it plays a huge part in the reason why many people oppose the fact that college athletes should be getting paid. According to the same article, "A majority ― 52% ― of black respondents are strongly or somewhat in favor of paying college athletes, while only 15% strongly or somewhat oppose the idea. Among whites, however, the numbers flip: Just 27% support paying those athletes, while 43% oppose it."

If a majority of these college athletes, who are bringing in staggering amounts of money to these schools were white, would this even be a conversation?

Ed O'Bannon, a former professional basketball player, won a lawsuit in 2014 where the NCAA was ordered to pay $44.4 million in attorneys' fees and another $1.5 million in costs to lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Ed O'Bannon class-action antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA.

former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon Jr. sits in his office in Henderson, Nevada. (AP Photo/Isaac Brekken)

O'Bannon and 19 others sued the NCAA, claiming the organization violated United States antitrust laws by not allowing athletes to get a share of the revenues generated from the use of their images in broadcasts and video games. Many former collegiate players were compensated, but some felt it was inadequate and they were owed more.

In 2014, Shabazz Napier was quoted:

"We do have hungry nights that we don't have enough money to get food in. Sometimes money is needed. I don't think you should stretch it out to hundreds of thousands of dollars for playing, because a lot of times guys don't know how to handle themselves with money. I feel like a student athlete. Sometimes, there's hungry nights where I'm not able to eat, but I still gotta play up to my capabilities."

All of this begs the question, that if the NCAA did choose to pay college athletes, what would be the advantages or disadvantages of doing so? Below are a few potential pros and cons of paying college athletes.

Pros

1. Support their families ― Players would be able to actually afford a decent meal and possibly send some money back home. Many of these athletes come from urban, low-class families and often leave school early because of the unimaginable pressure to be the main provider for their family at a young age.

2. Players may stay longer ― To back up the last point, players wouldn't have to leave school early and would still be able to pursue an education while taking care of their family back home. This would possibly increase graduation rates, allow fans to see their favorite players mature through college, and ensure coaches are preparing athletes as much as possible for the next level.

3. Limits corruption from external influences ― Compensating athletes in college will limit the corruption involving agents, boosters and others. Over the years we have seen and heard scandals involving players taking money and even point-shaving. Wouldn't paying them eliminate a lot of these issues?

4. Giving them what they deserve right? ― In Business Insider last week, there was an article that stated, "It is estimated that the University of Louisville has the most valuable players at $1.72 million per year based on the program's $45.6 million in annual revenue. Overall, the average Division I player is worth $170,098 per year with the 351 Division I basketball programs taking in more than 4.5 million in revenue on average each year." These athletes are bringing in incredible amounts of revenue to these schools ― why aren't they receiving what is due? I mean the bottom line is, isn't this what they deserve for their labor?

Cons

1. Financial irresponsibility ― Amateur players receiving compensation just seems like a complete disaster. They don't know how to manage their money, and there wouldn't be anyone their to guide their financial decisions. Colin Cowherd states, "I don't think paying all college athletes is great; not every college is loaded, and most 19-year-olds (are) gonna spend it-and let's be honest, they're gonna spend it on weed and kicks!"

2. Unfair compensation between players ― How will players be compensated? Will each player receive the same amount? What about the top level talent? Should they receive more because they were All-Americans? In theory, wouldn't it bring problems between players, due to one teammate potentially receiving more money?

3. Athletes may never go to class ― Let's face it, if they give these kids money, they'll never have any incentive to go to class. Many of them don't want to go already, combined with the fact that some may be receiving grades without doing any work. Money will only add to this fact.

4. Removes athletes competitive nature and passion for the game ― Players will take on a "pro mindset" where the only motive is money. They will lose that hunger and passion that we see in college. It will be traded for lackadaisical plays and half-ass efforts that we sometime see from pros.

As always, there are two sides to any argument. Even as a former college athlete, I am at a point in my life where I can understand each side. But I do find it interesting as to why so many are widely opposed to this idea. Is it racial? Is it because it's unnecessary? Is it unfair?

Whatever it may be, it looks like this growing debate won't be dying down anytime soon.

Related

Legal Issues Basketball March Madness Division I

Athlete, Author & Entrepreneur

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College Athletes Getting Paid? Here Are Some Pros And Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During this year's NCAA tournament, there has been obvious speculation about college athletes and the significant amount of revenue they have been bringing to their schools and the NCAA. This isn't something new. This is something that has been a growing issue in recent years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Crossfire: Should college athletes be paid?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When it comes to preventing young athletes from earning a fair share of the more than $8 billion a year generated by college sports, the National Collegiate Athletic Association is akin to a moralizing street mugger.

It's not enough for the organization to flash a knife and demand players' wallets; it also has to tell everyone within earshot that, no, actually, empty pockets are good. That's how the NCAA argues that its amateurism rules - which limit player compensation to tuition, room, board and small cost-of-living stipends, but do not restrict sports administrators such as Alabama football coach Nick Saban from collecting millions - are necessary and justified because they protect and enhance athletes' educations.

There's no connection between cash in a player's hands - or a W-2 form in their mailbox - and their ability to open a textbook or show up to class. But that hasn't stopped the NCAA from making this case in the court of public opinion and, more recently, in federal court. In a bench trial overseen by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilkenin Oakland, California, that is scheduled to end Sept. 25, former campus athletes are challenging the organization's pay-for-play prohibition. They argue that it violates antitrust law by restraining competitive bidding among schools for the services of top athletes, similar to how tech giants allegedly conspired to hold down salaries by agreeing to not hire one another's employees. Wilken's ruling could come as soon as December.

If athletes win and withstand a lengthy appeals process, it could utterly transform the plantation economy of big-time college sports. Depending on the scope of Wilken's ruling - she could loosen NCAA restrictions a bit or a lot, or even eliminate them entirely - a gold-medal-winning Olympic swimmer like Katie Ledecky would be able to endorse products without jeopardizing her college eligibility. Football stars such as former University of Georgia running back Todd Gurley could sell their autographs for cash without sending state legislators scrambling to criminalize the act. Individual schools could pay athletes as little or as much as they like - the same way they now pay strength coaches, athletic directors, school presidents, grad students and everyone else with a campus job. (Actually requiring that athletes be paid would be beyond the scope of an antitrust case.)

The NCAA is telling Wilken that paying players would have "staggering and destructive implications" for college sports - and for the educations of campus athletes. "Maintaining amateurism," the organization says on its website, "is crucial to preserving an academic environment in which acquiring a quality education is the first priority."

How so? According to the NCAA, paid players would study less and play sports more. As its former vice president Oliver Luck once explained, paychecks and the "opportunity to do an autograph signing, or an endorsement" would "distract" campus athletes from "what's really important, which is the educational component."

Moreover, the NCAA asserts that permitting pay would make athletes less integrated into their campus communities. If an "athlete was being paid and it changed significantly their lifestyle," NCAA President Mark Emmert testified in a previous federal antitrust case, "they probably would not be living in a residence hall. They probably would not be eating in the cafeteria, they probably would not be as - as active a member or participant in the life of a campus."

Squint a little, don't think too hard, and both of these justifications sound plausible. But they're utterly divorced from the reality of campus athletics. Take the notion that pay would lead athletes to spend more time on sports-related activities. It's hard to see where they'd find the extra hours. A 2015 survey found that athletes in the Pac-12 Conference spent an average of 50 hours per week on their sports and were often "too exhausted to study effectively."

The previous year, a regional director of the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Northwestern University football players qualified as school employees under federal labor law, largely because they spent 40 to 50 hours a week on their sport during the season and up to 25 hours a week during the spring semester - compared with just 20 hours a week on academics. Kain Colter, then the team's quarterback, testified that he was steered away from strenuous classes like chemistry and had to abandon a pre-med major because his sport was too consuming.

"You can't ever reach your academic potential with the time demands," he said. "You have to sacrifice, and we're not allowed to sacrifice football."

Eliminating amateurism likely wouldn't make athletes like Colter more distracted or more likely to sacrifice school for sports. It would simply allow them to be compensated for the sacrifices they're already making. Moreover, working and earning while attending college isn't exactly unheard of. According to a Georgetown University study, between 70 and 80 percent of college students are active in the labor market, with roughly 40 percent of undergraduates working at least 30 hours a week and 25 percent of full-time students also working full-time jobs.

NCAA schools don't tell those students what they can and can't earn for the sake of academic focus, any more than Georgetown - my alma mater - told me I couldn't collect a check from my job at the student bookstore because it might distract me from my government homework. Actress Natalie Portman worked on a Star Wars film while enrolled at Harvard. Bumble CEO Whitney Wolfe Herd sold tote bags to raise money for animals affected by the 2010 BP oil spill while she was attending Southern Methodist University. Numerous professional athletes - including current Washington Wizards forward Jeff Green and former Baltimore Ravens lineman John Urschel - have completed undergraduate and graduate degrees while literally being paid to play sports. Why should campus athletes be held to a separate and unequal standard?

Speaking of Urschel, he played for the Ravens while pursuing a PhD in math at MIT. Did Emmert fret that he wasn't eating at the school cafeteria? Did the NCAA send someone to check? All anyone needs to know about the assertion made by University of South Carolina president Harris Pastides during the O'Bannon trial that allowing player pay would "drive a wedge" between athletes and their fellow students is this: The same people making those claims are busy using the money they don't spend on athletic labor to build lavish, multimillion-dollar, sports-only training facilities containing barber shops, bowling lanes, movie theaters, beach views and man-made lazy rivers, offering athletes a luxe world separate from the rest of campus.

The NCAA's assertion that if players are paid, then they won't study is inarguably paternalistic, arguably racist - would amateurism exist if it was siphoning hundreds of millions of dollars from predominantly white revenue-sport athletes to overwhelmingly black school administrators, and not the other way around? Nevertheless, the argument has worked in court before.

In 2014, Wilken ruled against the NCAA in a similar suit brought by former UCLAbasketball player Ed O'Bannon over the uncompensated use of athletes' names, images and likenesses on television broadcasts and in video games. Finding that NCAA restrictions violated antitrust law, she ordered that schools be allowed to pay athletes at least $5,000 a year via trust funds that they could access after their college careers. The NCAA appealed her decision, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuitnixed the trust funds, finding merit in the organization's education argument by declaring that all athlete compensation needed to be "tethered" to schooling.

This was a mistake. After all, if prohibiting player pay truly was crucial to making quality education the top priority in college sports, then the NCAA and its member schools would be presiding over a scholastic nirvana, which is not the case. Academic scandals marked by tutor-written coursework and no-show classes are as reliably regular as the changing seasons. A 2014report from the University of South Carolina's College Sport Research Institute found that the graduation rates of football and men's basketball players in the major conferences were 20 to 31.5 percent lower than those of non-athletes. Back in the aughts, a University of Georgia assistant men's basketball coach taught a course, mostly for his players, with a final exam that began by asking: "How many goals are on a basketball court?"

A ridiculous question, to be sure. But no more ridiculous than the NCAA pretending to be an academic guardian in order to plunder its on-field workforce. Three years ago, former University of North Carolina athletes sued their school and the organization, alleging that they hadn't received legitimate educations because of widespread academic fraud. The NCAA responded by denying any responsibility to "ensure the quality" of their schooling, and it later declined to punish UNC. It was a rare flash of honesty - a lesson for Wilken and the rest of us, too. Amateurism doesn't protect education. It protects schools' bottom lines.

Hruby is an award-winning Washington-based writer, editor and journalist.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The NCAA says paying athletes hurts their education. That's laughable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When it comes to preventing young athletes from earning a fair share of the more than $8 billion a year generated by college sports, the National Collegiate Athletic Association is akin to a moralizing street mugger. The organization tolerates academic scandals while hiding behind dubious ideals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should college athletes be paid to play?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
College athletics is less a nonprofit enterprise than an industry exploiting its workers, writes Brian Rosenberg, the president of Macalester College, in The New York Times. He points out that universities with top teams can rake in nearly $20 million a year from Nike or Adidas sponsorships, while the athletes themselves, whose talent is what attracts such sponsorships in the first place, walk away with nothing. He writes:

College basketball players are worth a lot of money, but they aren't legally allowed to make it. So the schools, coaches, agents and shoe companies make the money instead - all in the name of "amateurism."

Katelyn Ohashi, a former University of California, Los Angeles, gymnast, has criticized the unfairness of N.C.A.A. rules that prevented her from making any money from a video of a perfect floor routine that went viral earlier this year. She told Mr. Newsom:

Here's the fame, but then there's no compensation, and it's so crazy. People are like, "Oh, you must be so rich." And I'm like, "You must not know the N.C.A.A." ... When my routine went viral, [N.C.A.A. President] Mark Emmert called me to congratulate me, and I'm like, "You should be thanking me."

In fact, according to an analysis cited in The Economist, if players were paid in proportion to the amount of revenue they generated for their colleges, "the top 10 percent of football and 16 percent of basketball players would be paid around $400,000 and $250,000 a year respectively." While the N.C.A.A.'s desire to keep so-called professionalism out of college sports may have made sense before they became such a big business, the author writes, it's clearly an illusion that no longer holds:

The two most lucrative college sports, American football and basketball, are highly competitive. Many universities are willing to bend over backward to enroll talented players. And the argument that university athletics remains amateur would hardly earn passing marks in even an introductory college course.

Removing the N.C.A.A. restrictions on endorsements would create a winner-take-all dynamic within and among universities, writes Cody J. McDavis, a former Division I basketball player. The best players at the best schools would reap all the benefits, Mr. McDavis says, while less popular sports and athletes would suffer. He writes:

Major brands like Nike would pay top football and basketball talent at the biggest schools, while student-athletes in other sports or at smaller programs would be ignored. Currently, corporate funds go to athletic departments and are generally distributed among all sports; with third-party payments, those funds could instead mostly go directly to a few student-athletes, starving the rest.

The N.C.A.A., for its part, has said the California law "would erase the critical distinction between college and professional athletes." Even The Los Angeles Times editorial board, which came out in favor of the law, acknowledges that some change to the spirit of college athletics would be inevitable. They write:

The measure would inevitably eat away at the distinction between professional and college sports. Celebrated collegians could make money not only by endorsing sneakers and sports drinks, but also by autographing jerseys, pitching workout videos and putting their name on baseball bats and hockey sticks. In short, they could profit from the fame that their work as an athlete brings.

As those on opposing sides of California's law debate how the fruits of the college sports economy ought to be distributed, others assert that the solution is simply to decommercialize the activity altogether.

Jonathan R. Cole, a professor at Columbia and author of "Toward a More Perfect University," suggests in The Atlantic that the emphasis placed on campus athletics is " totally out of control." In 41 states, he writes, the highest-paid public employee is not a professor or neurosurgeon, but rather a college football or basketball coach. For students, meanwhile, the difficulty of keeping up with both coursework and demanding athletic schedules has created an incentive for academic fraud. Taken together, a picture emerges of college sports as a pseudoprofessional industry that encroaches upon the mission of higher education. He writes:

For the highly selective colleges and universities, the leaders ought to roll back the percentage of recruited athletes. ... The highly selective colleges ought to withdraw from the N.C.A.A. and form their own league since they are not trying to build national championship programs. ... Finally, university leaders should consider forming special institutions located in different geographic areas that are devoted almost entirely to athletics and bodily-kinesthetic intelligence.

One school that has provided something of a model on this front is Spelman, a historically black college for women. In 2011, Spelman learned that its N.C.A.A. division was losing three members. Rather than find another conference in which to compete at great expense, the school decided to withdraw from the N.C.A.A. and eliminate its athletics department in favor of a fitness program for all students. Beverly Daniel Tatum, then Spelman's president, wrote in The Times in 2013:

Whether it's diabetes, high blood pressure or heart disease, black women are more likely to suffer from these ailments - and die from them - at young ages. All are linked to obesity and lack of physical activity. ... We decided that it was more important to support our entire campus with a wellness initiative than 80 student athletes with N.C.A.A. funding.

California's changes aren't scheduled to take effect until 2023, leaving the N.C.A.A. ample time to mount court challenges to the law, which the organization has suggested violates the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. If the law is upheld, the N.C.A.A. will have to decide whether to penalize the schools with fines, which may or may not be legally enforceable, or even expel them.

For now, California is betting that the outsize importance of its universities within the world of college sports will make those threats impossible to carry out. "I don't necessarily take it to heart," Newsom said.
It's the one-month birthday of this newsletter! Do you have a topic you'd like us to cover? Is there anything you want to see more or less of? Email us at debatable@nytimes.com to tell us what you think so we can make it even better for you.
Jemele Hill makes the case for black athletes to leave white colleges for historically black ones. [The Atlantic]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Should College Athletes Be Allowed to Get Paid? (Published 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
College athletics is less a nonprofit enterprise than an industry exploiting its workers, writes Brian Rosenberg, the president of Macalester College, in The New York Times. He points out that universities with top teams can rake in nearly $20 million a year from Nike or Adidas sponsorships, while the athletes themselves, whose talent is what attracts such sponsorships in the first place, walk away with nothing.