# data[].attributes.headline
14 should college athletes be paid pros and cons

# data[].attributes.subject
14 should college athletes be paid pros and cons

# 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.attachment_link.readable_text
March Madness is in full swing, with the college basketball championship raking in big bucks for the NCAA. Former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon thinks those players should also get paid.

O'Bannon, who currently has a lawsuit against the association, told CNBC's " Closing Bell" the athletes who play in the tournament "want to be there and are honored to play in that tournament.

"I just think that along with their possible degrees that they are getting, they should be compensated for it."

While the NCAA has 17 official corporate sponsors that have each paid the organization $10 million to $35 million, O'Bannon said the athletes' compensation doesn't have to be $1 million but just a "little something" to recognize that they are bringing in money to their schools.

Read More Sweet 16 a slam dunk for advertisers

Nearly five years ago, O'Bannon sued the NCAA, Electronic Arts and the Collegiate Licensing Company over the use of his name and image.

Lawyers for O'Bannon reached a $40 million settlement with EA and the Collegiate Licensing Company, which handles licensing rates for many universities. However, the case against the NCAA is still working its way through the courts.

Last August, a federal judge ruled the association violated antitrust law by prohibiting college athletes from being compensated for use of their names, images and likenesses. The court also ordered that schools be allowed to offer athletes full cost-of-attendance scholarships and put up to $5,000 per athlete, per year of eligibility, into a trust.

The NCAA has appealed the decision. Oral arguments were held last week in the case.

At the time it filed the appeal, the NCAA said it did not believe it violated antitrust laws.

"In its decision, the Court acknowledged that changes to the rules that govern college athletics would be better achieved outside the courtroom, and the NCAA continues to believe that the Association and its members are best positioned to evolve its rules and processes to better serve student-athletes," the NCAA's chief legal officer, Donald Remy, said in a statement last August.

Read More Pay for play: NCAA schools keep eye on legal cases

O'Bannon said the lawsuit was never about the money, it was about righting a wrong.

"If a company or someone was to use your likeness then you should be compensated for it, at the very least asked if your likeness can be used."

Since the legal action, the issue has grown from using a college athlete's likeness to whether he or she should be paid while in school.

For O'Bannon, the biggest thing is that the conversation is now happening.

"I feel strongly that if everyone involved can get together and talk about things they can work things out, whether it be pay when you are in school or collecting when your eligibility is up."

-CNBC's Steven Desaulniers, CNBC's Eric Chemi and Alicia Jessop contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College athletes should be compensated: Former UCLA star

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
March Madness is in full swing, with the college basketball championship raking in big bucks for the NCAA. Former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon thinks those players should also get paid. O'Bannon, who currently has a lawsuit against the association, told CNBC's " Closing Bell" the athletes who play in the tournament "want to be there and are honored to play in that tournament.

# data[].attributes.headline
Dolgenos| Should college athletes be paid?

# data[].attributes.subject
Dolgenos| Should college athletes be paid?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Credit: Jess Tan

Whether or not to pay college athletes.

This is a touchy subject. In total, I approached five people asking to interview them. One flat out refused, one accepted as long as they could be quoted with a conditional anonymity, and the other three accepted. This was new to me.

The debate has gained notoriety in the past couple years and has picked up more steam in the past few weeks with the injury to Duke freshman Zion Williamson, the expected first overall pick in the upcoming NBA Draft.

The Duke versus North Carolina matchup on Feb. 20 was one of the most highly anticipated games of the college basketball season. President Obama was in attendance. Ticket prices for the game averaged over $4000. Between ticket revenue and the lavish ACC television contracts, it's clear that Duke basketball generates a ton of revenue and attention for the university.

There is less money on the line for athletes at Penn, but the issue is just as relevant. Ivy League programs don't give athletic scholarships, but rather provide need-based financial aid to student athletes. Ticket prices for men's basketball games (or any games at Penn) don't come close to averaging $4000. But the amount of time put in by a student athlete at Penn is similar to the amount of time put in by a student athlete on a nationally ranked team.

I asked a Division I basketball player, who requested anonymity, to take me through a typical in-season practice day at their top-25 program. Here's what they said:

9:30 - 10:30 a.m. - Mandatory team breakfast

10:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. - Class

1:30 - 2:00 p.m. - Film Session

2:00 - 4:00 p.m. - Organized practice

4:00 - 4:45 p.m. - Individualized practice (shooting drills, etc.)

5:00 - 5:45 p.m. - Shower and team dinner

Student athletes are free to do what they please after dinner.

"They want us to have class between 10 [in the morning] and 1 [in the afternoon], and then after 6. Those are the guidelines they gave us," the player said.

Angelo Matos, a senior defensive lineman on the Penn sprint football team, quit the varsity football team after his freshman year. This is the varsity football team's in-season practice schedule he provided, though he noted that it's only a rough estimate.

7:00 - 8:00 a.m. - Film session

8:00 - 9:00 a.m. - Morning lift

9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. - Class

3:00 - 5:00 p.m. - Practice

5:00 - 5:30 p.m. - Shower and change

5:30 - 6:30 p.m. - Dinner

6:45 - 8:15 p.m. - Mandatory study hours (three times per week)

Student athletes are free to do what they want after 8:15 p.m.

Matos emphasized that even when he wasn't physically at practice or any mandatory football activity, his mind was still on the game.

"One of the first people you meet as a freshman is the nutritionist. I was told by a coach that I needed to gain at least 30 pounds if I wanted to get on the field, so even during meals I'm thinking about football. I was thinking about football all day," he said.

The most prevalent argument in favor of not paying student athletes is that they are given access to a top-quality education. However, the time required from athletics often interferes with academics. All of the student athletes I spoke to were quick to note that.

"We go to Texas; Raleigh, [North Carolina]; [Washington] D.C. We leave on Wednesday for those meets. We'll fly out Wednesday and we won't get back until Sunday. It's a lot of time," Penn junior track athlete Olivia Welsh said. "[Our practice] is a big chunk of the day that's taken out from studying, meeting with professors, other extracurriculars, and stuff like that."

"I didn't have enough time for academics to the point that I dropped a class," Matos said. "I felt a better solution than leaving a team that I already committed to and saw some promise in was to drop a class."

Beyond the time interfering with academics, it can interfere with things like personal interests and hobbies. Junior and former outfielder Jerrette Lee is an interesting case. He was on Penn baseball but quit after his freshman year. He's now pursuing art with almost all his free time and selling his paintings. He even has a gallery exhibition next week.

"I didn't have enough time at all to pursue my art. Being able to get my time back and explore interests I had when I was a kid has really been worthwhile," Lee said. "I'm making infinitely more money from [painting] and putting in less time."

There are students - like myself - who are paid for on-campus jobs. I work as an intramural referee and get paid $9 an hour. It requires no outside time and no preparation. If I felt in any way that it interfered with my academics, I would not be doing it.

Meanwhile, the student athletes I spoke to all put in over 30 hours per week for their sport during the season. It's a full time job. It affects their academic performances, their extracurricular participation, their hobbies - and yet, they are compensated monetarily for none of it. What's different?

CHARLIE DOLGENOS is a College junior from Philadelphia and a Sports Reporter for The Daily Pennsylvanian. He can be reached at dpsports@thedp.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dolgenos | Should college athletes be paid?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whether or not to pay college athletes. This is a touchy subject. In total, I approached five people asking to interview them. One flat out refused, one accepted as long as they could be quoted with a conditional anonymity, and the other three accepted. This was new to me.

# data[].attributes.headline
10 Reasons college athletes should be paid.

# data[].attributes.subject
10 Reasons college athletes should be paid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
College sports bring in big dollars every year on the major college level. These programs bring $30 and sometimes $40 million dollars per year to the universities and colleges and the players get nothing. These are the same players who are breaking their backs for the university day in and day out and can't get a share of that money and, to me, that does not seem fair.

I know what you may be thinking: that these student athletes are getting a free education or have gotten a scholarship to play ball at that university. To me, that's the least they could be doing.
This list of 10 reasons to pay college athletes is by no means comprehensive, but it does provide a quick overview of some of the top arguments given for paying college athletes.

Recommended For article:
Best Offset Patio Umbrellas

1. Provides income to students who do not have time to work part-time jobs​​

Despite the NCAA mandating that teams limit the amount of time college athletes participate in athletics to 20 hours per week, student athletes report that they often spend much more. On average, athletes spend 28 hours per week, with many reporting much higher.

At that rate, students are working the equivalent of at least a part-time job; often closer to a full-time job. This limits their ability to earn income through normal means (e.g., working a campus job). Additionally, while athletes are compensated (tuition waivers and, in some cases, additional stipends to cover standard college expenses), they do not receive money to pay for common incidentals (e.g., food, recreation, clothes, etc.)

2. Limit corruption / rule violations and rules-related time commitments​​

Many violations relate to impermissible benefits being provided to players (see here for some of the more humorous). Not only do schools and the NCAA spend an enormous amount of time policing rule violations, the strictness of the rules forces players to be constantly vigilant with their actions lest they commit a minor offense.

Even any cases where the offenses are deemed major (e.g., selling autographs), it seems unfair to penalize players so harshly when the action does not seem to harm anyone. Moreover, athletic departments would be able to redirect time spent associated with compensation-based rules violations to activities that further athletes' well-being (e.g., academic support); the NCAA could also redirect its efforts to focus on more impactful violations.

3. The Olympics have a pre-established system allowing amateurs to receive money from endorsements and memorabilia (e.g., jerseys/T-shirts)​​

The Olympics have long-since 1971-disassociated compensation from amateurism, though the United States did not allow their athletes to receive compensation until 1978. Olympic athletes are allowed to earn income through workforce employment, as well as endorsements from sponsors and/or grants and stipends from corporations or other groups.

Adopting the Olympian model would allow schools to avoid having to compensate all athletes-meaning no Title IX concerns-and allow athletes to receive compensation through corporate endorsements.
Recommended For article:
Portable Boomboxes
4. Offset, to a small degree, the risk athletes take in regards to short- and long-term damage to their bodies playing sports​​

The NCAA now requires (since 2005) schools to certify that athletes have a specific minimum level of insurance that covers injuries while they are participating in athletic events. Despite that, allowing players to receive additional money while in college would provide them the opportunity to save in case of a permanent injury or lingering effects from athletic participation.

5. NCAA is multi-billion dollar revenue generator and players deserve to receive more direct forms of compensation in addition to tuition waivers​​

College athletics-specifically football and men's basketball-are major revenue generators for both universities and the NCAA. The NCAA, for example, continues to sign significant television contracts; conferences, too, are establishing their own media outlets and signing away exclusive television rights.

Athletes, though, see no direct benefit from these massive deals, despite being, in a sense, the "product" that is being sold. Suggestions, such as incorporating athlete compensation packages as part of television contracts, could fund some compensation.

6. Increase college graduation rate​​

Providing college athletes money would limit their dependence on entering professional leagues to earn income to support themselves or, in some cases, their family. Javedon Clowney, for example, was a star defensive end for the South Carolina Gamecocks and claims he would have stayed in school if the university had been allowed to provide him money to provide for his family.

7. Many athletes are required to spend much of their off-season (including summers) participating in athletics related activities e.g., gym hours)​​
Recommended For article:
cd boombox reviews
As recently as 2010, the NCAA found that many athletes report devoting more time to their sport during the offseason as they do during the season. This may occur because players have fewer academic commitments (e.g., fewer classes during summer) or less need to conserve injury or lessen risk of injury when there are no games.

This eliminates the common sentiment that athletes are able to focus more once their season is complete. Moreover, often teams will have volunteer activities that athletes may perceive as being mandatory.

8. Divert money away from coaches and to the players​​

No reasonable person would argue that coaches do not contribute to the success (or lack thereof) of college athletes-both on and off the field. However, coaching salaries have dramatically risen the past decade, especially assistant coaches at Power 5 schools, and the highest are well over $2,000,000.

Rather than continuing to pay coaches ever increasing salaries, athletic departments could divert some of the money to the athletes who are actually playing the game.

9. Compensate players (and programs) earning revenue​​

Nothing is quite as American as meritocracy-except for maybe college athletics. In fact, it seems the combination of the two would be the ideal solution. In a "survival of the fittest style", paying athletes would be rewards for not only performance but also for earning revenue for their company (i.e., their university).

Taken to the extreme, this idea could push out freeloading college sports but if concerns over athletic department profits are preventing the payment of college athletes, then a Darwinian approach to college sports could the answer.

10. Financial incentives may encourage wider participation​​

Increasing participation is, to this author, one of the weaker pros often listed. For the average athlete, it is unlikely that the lack of financial incentives is preventing that player from deciding to participate in college athletics. However, there is a small chance that some players must decline because cannot afford common necessities (food, clothing, etc.) that are often outside the benefits received through their scholarship.

Conclusion​​

Student athletes are stuck between two worlds. While the NCAA constantly affirms its commitment to its root values, it is simultaneously brokering deals with national networks to show live football games to millions of people.

Too many college athletes put their heart and soul into what they do and too many come out with any reward. Many people say that NCAA has an ideal model for creating cheap labor. Not only do they expect athletes to perform in the classroom that performance has to be translated to the field.

Recommended For article:
cantilever patio umbrella reviews

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top 10 Reasons College Athletes Should Be Paid - ThemeCountry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
College sports bring in big dollars every year on the major college level. These programs bring $30 and sometimes $40 million dollars per year to the universities and colleges and the players get nothing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Credit... Collages by Sara Cwynar

Mark Emmert, the president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the almighty overseer of American college sports, likes to think of himself as a reformer. A few months ago, after he'd been on the job for a little more than a year, he pushed through a series of improvements, including slightly higher academic standards for college athletes, a full-scale review of the N.C.A.A.'s fat rule book and a new provision giving universities the option of offering four-year scholarships. The current one-year deals are, believe it or not, renewable at the discretion of coaches, who can effectively cut injured or underperforming "student athletes," as the N.C.A.A. likes to call them.

And one other thing: With Emmert's backing, the N.C.A.A.'s board of directors, composed of college and university presidents (Emmert himself is a former president of the University of Washington), agreed to make it permissible for Division I schools to pay their athletes a $2,000 stipend. When I saw Emmert in November, shortly after the new rule went into effect, I told him that the stipend struck me as a form of payment to the players. He visibly stiffened. "If we move toward a pay-for-play model - if we were to convert our student athletes to employees of the university - that would be the death of college athletics," Emmert retorted. "Then they are subcontractors. Why would you even want them to be students? Why would you care about their graduation rates? Why would you care about their behavior?" No, he insisted, the extra $2,000 was an effort to increase the value of the scholarships, which some studies estimate falls on average about $3,500 short of the full cost of attending college annually.

At the time I spoke to Emmert, high-school athletes were signing binding letters of intent to attend a university - letters that said they would get the $2,000. But over the next month, college athletic directors and conference commissioners began protesting the new stipend, claiming they couldn't afford it. Within a month, more than 125 of them had signed an "override request." And so it was that just a few weeks ago, the N.C.A.A. decided to suspend the payment. For legal reasons, those athletes who were already promised the $2,000 will most likely still get it. But any athlete granted a scholarship after the stipend was canceled may not. (The N.C.A.A. plans to review the issue on Jan. 14.) In other words, some lucky handful of incoming freshmen will be handed $2,000 without jeopardizing their status as amateurs. Yet any other college athlete who manages to get his hands on an extra $2,000 - by taking money from an overenthusiastic booster, say, or selling some of their team paraphernalia, as a few Ohio State football players did - will be violating the N.C.A.A.'s rules regarding amateurism and will probably face a multigame suspension. Behold the logic of the N.C.A.A. at work.

The hypocrisy that permeates big-money college sports takes your breath away. College football and men's basketball have become such huge commercial enterprises that together they generate more than $6 billion in annual revenue, more than the National Basketball Association. A top college coach can make as much or more than a professional coach; Ohio State just agreed to pay Urban Meyer $24 million over six years. Powerful conferences like the S.E.C. and the Pac 12 have signed lucrative TV deals, while the Big 10 and the University of Texas have created their own sports networks. Companies like Coors and Chick-fil-A eagerly toss millions in marketing dollars at college sports. Last year, Turner Broadcasting and CBS signed a 14-year, $10.8 billion deal for the television rights to the N.C.A.A.'s men's basketball national championship tournament (a k a "March Madness"). And what does the labor force that makes it possible for coaches to earn millions, and causes marketers to spend billions, get? Nothing. The workers are supposed to be content with a scholarship that does not even cover the full cost of attending college. Any student athlete who accepts an unapproved, free hamburger from a coach, or even a fan, is in violation of N.C.A.A. rules.

This glaring, and increasingly untenable, discrepancy between what football and basketball players get and what everyone else in their food chain reaps has led to two things. First, it has bred a deep cynicism among the athletes themselves. Players aren't stupid. They look around and see jerseys with their names on them being sold in the bookstores. They see 100,000 people in the stands on a Saturday afternoon. During the season, they can end up putting in 50-hour weeks at their sports, and they learn early on not to take any course that might require real effort or interfere with the primary reason they are on campus: to play football or basketball. The N.C.A.A. can piously define them as students first, but the players know better. They know they are making money for the athletic department. The N.C.A.A.'s often-stated contention that it is protecting the players from "excessive commercialism" is ludicrous; the only thing it's protecting is everyone else's revenue stream. (The N.C.A.A. itself takes in nearly $800 million a year, mostly from its March Madness TV contracts.) "Athletes in football and basketball feel unfairly treated," Leigh Steinberg, a prominent sports agent, says. "The dominant attitude among players is that there is no moral or ethical reason not to take money, because the system is ripping them off."

It's a system that enables misconduct to flourish. The abuse scandals that have swirled around Penn State football and Syracuse basketball. The revelation that a University of Miami booster - now in prison, convicted of running a Ponzi scheme - provided dozens of Miami football players with money, cars and even prostitutes. The Ohio State merchandise scandal that cost the coach, Jim Tressel, his job. The financial scandal at the Fiesta Bowl that led to the firing of its chief executive and the indictment of another top executive.

Another consequence of this economic discrepancy between the players and everyone else, though, is the increasingly loud calls for reform. Not the kind of reform that Emmert talks about - change that nibbles around the edges, while trying to maintain the illusion that college football and men's basketball players are merely partaking in an extracurricular activity like theater or the chess club. That illusion was shattered long ago, surely. "The huge TV contracts and excessive commercialization have corrupted intercollegiate athletics," says Brit Kirwan, the chancellor at the University of Maryland system. "To some extent they have compromised the integrity of the universities."

The new breed of reformers, whose perspective I share, believes that the only way the major sports schools can achieve any integrity is to end the hypocrisy and recognize that college football and men's basketball are big businesses. Most of these new reformers love college sports - as do I. They realize that having universities in charge of a major form of American entertainment is far from ideal, but they are also realistic enough to know that scaling back big-time college sports is implausible, given the money at stake. Instead, the best approach is to openly acknowledge their commercialization - and pay the work force. This is, by now, a moral imperative. The historian Taylor Branch, who in October published a lengthy excoriation of the N.C.A.A. in The Atlantic, comparing it to "the plantation," was only the most recent voice to call for players to be paid. Like most such would-be reformers, however, he didn't offer a way to go about it.

That's what I'm setting out to do here. Over the last few months, in consultation with sports economists, antitrust lawyers and reformers, I put together the outlines of what I believe to be a realistic plan to pay those who play football and men's basketball in college. Although the approach may appear radical at first glance, that's mainly because we've been brainwashed into believing that there's something fundamentally wrong with rewarding college athletes with cold, hard cash. There isn't. Paying football and basketball players will not ruin college sports or cause them to become "subcontractors." Indeed, given the way big-time college sports are going, paying the players may be the only way to save them.

There are five elements to my plan. The first is a modified free-market approach to recruiting college players. Instead of sweet-talking recruits, college coaches will instead offer athletes real contracts, just as professional teams do. One school might think a star halfback is worth $40,000 a year; another might think he's worth $60,000. When the player chooses a school, money will inevitably be part of the equation. For both coaches and players, sweet-talking will take a back seat to clear-eyed financial calculations.

The second element is a salary cap for every team, along with a minimum annual salary for every scholarship athlete. The salary caps I have in mind are pretty low, all things considered: $3 million for the salaries for the football team, and $650,000 for basketball, with a minimum salary of $25,000 per athlete. I would keep the number of basketball scholarships the same, at 13, while reducing the number of football scholarships from 85 to a more reasonable 60, close to the size of N.F.L. rosters. Thus, each football team would spend $1.5 million on the minimum salaries, and have the rest to attract star players. Basketball teams would use $325,000 on minimum salaries, and have another $325,000 to allocate as they wish among players. Every player who stays in school for four years would also get an additional two-year scholarship, which he could use either to complete his bachelor's or get a master's degree. That's the third element.

The fourth: Each player would have lifetime health insurance. And the fifth: An organization would be created to represent both current and former college athletes. It may well turn out to be that this body takes on the form of a players' union, since a salary cap is illegal under antitrust law unless it is part of a collective-bargaining agreement. (That's why most professional sports leagues embrace players' unions.) This organization - let's call it the College Players Association - would manage the health insurance, negotiate with the N.C.A.A. to set the salary caps and salary minimums, distribute royalties and serve as an all-around counterweight to the N.C.A.A.

There have been other pay-the-player schemes put forward recently, in particular a Sports Illustrated proposal that would pay every athlete on campus a small stipend, including lacrosse players, golfers and volleyball players. But I think it's better to acknowledge forthrightly that those who play football and men's basketball are different from other college athletes - and that the players in those two revenue sports should be treated accordingly. Baseball and hockey players have a choice that football and basketball players don't have: they can go pro as soon as they leave high school, thanks to the existence of minor leagues. And sports like wrestling and rowing don't offer the possibility of a pro career - wrestlers and rowers are true amateurs. As James Duderstadt, the former president of the University of Michigan, told me: "Most sports can be justified as part of what a university does. But big-time football and men's basketball are clearly commercial entertainment and have been pulled away from the fundamental purpose of a university." The denial of that central fact is the primary reason those sports are so troubled today. Paying the players will cause the vast majority of the scandals to go away. In economic terms, the players' incentives will be realigned.

To see how, let's take a closer look at the elements of the plan.
Bidding for Players
Yes, I know: I had a hard time coming to grips with this, too. Then I met two Bay Area economists, Andy Schwarz and Dan Rascher, who work as litigation consultants and have a longstanding interest in the economics of college sports. (Rascher is also a professor of sport management at the University of San Francisco.) The case they make for using the free market to recruit players makes an overwhelming amount of sense.

One of the N.C.A.A.'s primary arguments against paying players is that the concept of amateurism is what defines college sports and make it special - and that to abandon that amateurism would ruin the college "brand." But Schwarz and Rascher argue amateurism has nothing to do with why fans love college sports. "What draws us to college athletics is that we love seeing students representing our schools," Schwarz says. "That would be just as true if they were being paid. The N.C.A.A. likes to conflate paying college athletes with the issue of whether they would still be students. Students get paid all the time."

What about the argument that football and basketball profits subsidize the other athletic programs? "If having a good lacrosse team is part of what the community values, then the university should pay for it," Schwarz says. "They shouldn't ask the football team to subsidize it." As for the objection that colleges with major sports programs don't have the money to pay $2,000 stipends, much less free-market salaries, Schwarz and Rascher just roll their eyes. "It's already an arms race," Schwarz says. Rascher points not just to the millions the coaches make but also to the money schools spend on facilities to impress recruits. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply pay some of that money to the recruits instead? "Economically, a big chunk of that money really does belong to the players," Schwarz says. The fact that they are not getting anything is precisely why everyone else is getting so much.

If it is still hard to imagine schools dangling financial contracts in front of high-school kids, consider that nonathletes get stipends all the time from universities. Besides, how much worse could it be than the status quo, in which parents and hangers-on too often angle for a little something to steer their children to this school or that one? In the world Schwarz and Rascher envision, athletes would hire advisers to help them. Legitimizing relations between agents and college athletes would be another huge improvement, because players could get good advice about their professional prospects. Currently, any player who so much as talks to an agent loses his eligibility to continue playing college sports.

Would coaches sometimes overpay players who turn out to be duds? Of course. But they would learn, just as the pros have had to learn, how to bring a financial perspective to evaluating talent. Actual coaching - x's and o's - would become more important. The number of recruiting violations would quite likely shrink to a negligible figure, as would most of the scandals that involve players taking money. They wouldn't need to take money because they would be paid for their work.
The Salary Cap and the Minimum Salary
Not everybody can be a highly paid star, of course. Teams need right tackles and backup point guards too. The minimum salary is not meant to make anybody rich. It is meant to ensure that no matter what your status on the team, you can still live like other students on campus - maybe even a tad better - even if you come from a disadvantaged background. For all the stereotypes of college jocks living large, the reality is often quite harsh. Indeed, to inquire about the life of college athletes is to hear, invariably, about players who wear the same clothes every day because they don't own any others. N.C.A.A. rules make no allowance for poverty, yet surely college athletes should be able to go on a date, rent an off-campus apartment, lease a car, have some clothes, visit home and pay for their parents to see them play once in a while. That is what the minimum salary will provide.

Image

As for the salary cap, it is an acknowledgment of two things. First, without a cap of some sort, the wealthiest athletic departments, like Texas's, with its own sports network, and Oklahoma State's, which has Boone Pickens's fortune behind it, could well dominate the recruiting of top players. A salary caps equalizes the amount every team can pay to recruit players. Those who succeed will be those who use that money most intelligently. (Competitive balance is another reason the N.C.A.A. gives for not paying players.)

Second, the salary cap recognizes that university athletic departments don't have unlimited sums of money to throw at football and basketball players. Andrew Zimbalist, the noted sports economist at Smith College - and a critic of many N.C.A.A. practices - told me he agrees with the contention that schools can't afford to pay players. In his recent book of essays about college sports, " Circling the Bases," he also called for federal legislation to cap - and lower - coaches' egregious salaries. But if the players were paid, the market would probably readjust coaches' salaries all by itself. At the University of Texas, Mack Brown, the football coach, can earn up to $6 million with bonuses. Texas could pay its entire salary cap merely by hiring a $3 million coach instead of a $6 million one. The point is, if schools had to pay their workers, they would find the money. It would simply mean trimming excess elsewhere.

There is another possible benefit. Schools could turn to boosters to help raise money to pay the players. What an improvement that would be - using booster money to legitimately pay players instead of handing them cash under the table.

One obvious rejoinder is that paying players will create haves and have-nots in college sports. That is true - the Alabamas and Florida States would have a much easier time coming up with $3.65 million for their football and basketball players than Youngstown State. But the big-name college programs already have overwhelming advantages over the smaller Division I schools; paying the players doesn't really change that fact. What it will most likely do is force smaller schools to rethink their commitment to big-time athletics. Schools that truly couldn't afford to pay their players would be forced to de-emphasize football and men's basketball - and, perhaps, regain their identity as institutions of higher learning. Ultimately, I suspect that if schools had to start paying their players, we would wind up with maybe 72 football schools (six conferences of 12 teams each) - down from the current 120 Football Bowl Subdivision programs - and 100 or so major basketball schools instead of the 338 that now play in Division I. Seems about right, doesn't it?
The Six-Year Scholarship
If you were starting from scratch, you would never devise a system that relies on universities to serve as a feeder system for pro sports. It is not what universities were intended to do, and no other country in the world does it that way. In Europe, where soccer is king, children with professional potential are culled from the educational system in their early teens and often receive separate schooling from their soccer teams. Those who don't wind up playing professionally are then ruthlessly tossed aside.

College athletes are routinely tossed aside, too - after they have used up their athletic eligibility. Even those who officially "graduate" often do so without getting a real education. It is the unspoken scandal that permeates college sports, and it is corrosive not just for the athletes but also for the entire student body. "Within two or three weeks of coming to a university, players often find out they are woefully underprepared for college work," Duderstadt says. "Very quickly they give up and major in eligibility. They take the cupcake courses. It is an insidious thing."

There is another issue: Players who were stars in high school inevitably come to college with big dreams of going pro one day. Yet, as Emmert notes, "we had 5,500 Division I men's basketball players last year, and only 50 went to the N.B.A." By the time most players realize that they are not going to make it to the professional ranks, so much time has been lost that they can never catch up academically. In most cases, they also can't afford to quit football and concentrate on their studies, because that would cost them their athletic scholarships.

The primary purpose of a six-year scholarship is to give athletes whose playing days have ended a chance to get their degrees - and to really have time to focus on classes that can prepare them for a future without football or basketball. It would allow players to take fewer courses during their years of athletic eligibility, giving them a better chance to succeed at the courses they do take. And it would make it possible for those players who do graduate within four years to pursue a graduate degree. The N.C.A.A. would no longer need to obsess over an athlete's academic performance; as long as he met the same standard the school applied to every other student, he could stay in school and play on the team. The extra two years would place the onus on the athlete to get an education, while also giving him the opportunity. Isn't that how it should work anyway?
Lifetime Health Insurance and the College Players Association
It is not just professional football players who have concussions. Nor are they the only ones who take painkillers to disguise their injuries - or who suffer chronic pain by the time they are in their 30s thanks to the beatings their bodies took during their athletic careers. Taylor Branch, the author of the Atlantic essay, was a good football player in high school, but he turned down a football scholarship to Georgia Tech because he knew his body was already breaking down just from playing high-school football. "I wouldn't have had any shoulders left if I had played football in college," he told me recently. Providing lifetime health insurance as a benefit for anyone who plays at least two years of college ball is a no-brainer.

The College Players Association, which would administer the health-insurance plan, would also represent the players whenever salary caps or minimum salaries are being set, as well as on those occasions when the N.C.A.A. or a college conference is cutting a deal with a television network or a marketing firm. Players would receive a percentage of the revenues - I am thinking 10 percent at first, though that, too, would quite likely rise - to be disbursed after they leave school, giving them a small share of the revenue their team generated while they were there. The organization would handle licensing deals on behalf of players whose jerseys are being sold, too, and collect fees whenever the N.C.A.A. markets the images of former players. (A portion of those fees would be used to pay the health insurance costs.) This clearinghouse role would resemble the system by which songwriters receive royalties from B.M.I. or Ascap whenever their songs are played on the radio or on television.

I borrowed the idea of a college players' association from Michael D. Hausfeld, a plaintiffs' lawyer who likes to take on high-profile cases with an element of social justice to them. Since the summer of 2009, he has been representing former Division I college football and basketball players in a class-action antitrust lawsuit against the N.C.A.A. for licensing their images without compensating them. It's called the O'Bannon case, after the lead plaintiff, Ed O'Bannon, a former college basketball star who led U.C.L.A. to a national championship in 1995. A trial is scheduled for May 2013.

(Full disclosure: William Isaacson, a lawyer with Boies, Schiller & Flexner, is among more than a dozen attorneys from various firms who have assisted Hausfeld in bringing the O'Bannon lawsuit. My fiancée is the firm's director of communications. She has played no role in the case, and does not stand to profit if O'Bannon wins.)

The case has received attention because it's a legitimate threat - maybe the first one ever - to the N.C.A.A.'s longstanding refusal to compensate its players. This is partly because the plaintiffs are former players - including basketball greats like Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell - who do not appear to be in it for a quick buck but seem to genuinely view themselves as trailblazers. For his part, Hausfeld has embraced this litigation as a cause akin to a lawsuit he once filed against Texaco for discriminating against minority employees. That case, he says proudly, "resulted not just in a monetary judgment, but a restructuring of the company's relationship with minorities."

Hausfeld insists that athletes have rights: "They have rights to a fair allocation of revenue, to health care, to career development, to education and to posteducational opportunities." He says that he believes that the O'Bannon case could well lead to a "restructuring" of the relationship between college athletes and the N.C.A.A. Which, in turn, might lead to paying the players.

It is possible, certainly, that the N.C.A.A. could win the O'Bannon case. It is also possible that the case could be decided or settled narrowly - allowing former players to be compensated for the use of their images but leaving the status of current players unchanged. But both Hausfeld and the N.C.A.A. have been acting as if the stakes are higher than that. Hausfeld has been attacking the concept of amateurism head-on, and the N.C.A.A. has been defending it with equal fervor. So there is at least a possibility that a judge will conclude that the N.C.A.A.'s refusal to pay its players has less to do with protecting the sanctity of amateur athletics than with its needs as a cartel to illegally suppress wages.

Anticipating the day when a judge might ask him what sort of remedy he would propose for the plaintiffs, Hausfeld has put forward the idea of an organization that would negotiate licensing agreements on behalf of former players and then act to collect and distribute the money they are due. I would take that notion a step further, and have that organization represent current players as well and negotiate a wider range of issues on their behalf. If Hausfeld wins the case, that may be where we are headed anyway.

To those who question why I am willing to pay these two categories of male athletes, but not any female athletes, my simple answer is that football and men's basketball players occupy a different role on campus - the role of an employee as well as a student - that female (and most other male) athletes do not. If the time comes when women's basketball is as commercialized and profit-driven as men's basketball, then yes, the women should be paid as well. But we're a long way from that point.

There are almost surely Title IX issues surrounding my plan, which would probably have to be settled by the courts. (Title IX is the law that guarantees women equal athletic opportunities in college sports.) But I would argue that the employee status of those who play football and men's basketball means that paying them does not violate Title IX. It is worth noting that, even now, 40 years after Title IX became the law of the land, many schools still spend far more money on men's than women's sports without running afoul of it.

To hear the gnashing of teeth by those who believe that money will soil college sports is to hark back to the days when baseball was on the cusp of free agency, or the Olympics was considering abandoning its longstanding adherence to amateurism. In both cases, critics feared that the introduction of serious and legitimate money would damage the sports, turn off the fans and lead to chaos. Instead, baseball and the Olympics got much better.

College sports will become more honest once players are paid, and more honorable. Fans will be able to enjoy football and men's basketball without having to avert their eyes from the scandals and the hypocrisy. Yes, it's true: paying players will change college sports. They will be better, too.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mark Emmert, the president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the almighty overseer of American college sports, likes to think of himself as a reformer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should College Athletes Be Paid? (Published 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A star athlete’s freak injury revives the debate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The spark that really ignited this question was a statement by the state of California that claimed that these college players should, in fact, get paid. California was so confident in their opinion that they presented a new law regarding college sports.

This future California law states that college athletes will now be allowed to hire agents and, furthermore, be paid for endorsements and the use of their images or even their name. This bold decision led to a major breakout crisis within the NCAA with differing opinions leaving big questions.

The NCAA has always had regulations that ban this exact thing, hence why chaos erupted around the announcement. The California law is not supposed to be put into effect until 2023, but it was organized in a way where even though it violates the NCAA regulations, the organization could not punish them.

However, this controversy is nothing new. For years, there has been the debate over whether or not college athletes should get paid. There are several aspects to each side of the argument, copious reasons to back up each side. Yet, what once used to be just an ongoing argument now must be faced in reality due to California's power move.

Many people who are for college athletes getting paid back up their opinion with two things. One, they bring up the point that is not these players getting paid, rather their coaches are getting millions. Second, they compare these college athletics to professional athletics who also get paid millions.

But, my question is are they not indirectly getting paid?

Think about it. Most college athletes head into college on full rides, meaning their committed college is paying for basically every ounce of college costs. Depending on the school, this can mean that these athletes are getting up to hundreds of thousands of dollars paid for them, as well as their education.

Furthermore, these big-time college athletes also travel quite often. And no, they do not pay to travel. This means that colleges are paying to take these athletes all around the country while the athletes just get to enjoy the ride.

Overall, these college athletes are sent off to college without having to worry about money. There are hundreds of thousands of students around the country that have to worry about college costs, and being a committed college athlete takes away that worry. These colleges are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars that college athletes will never have to pay back.

The whole idea of college athletes getting paid also comes down to the core of college sports. College sports are so different compared to professional sports, and a great deal of that comes from the fact that they do not get paid.

People enjoy watching college sports because they are unfiltered. The players don't play for the money they earn, they play because they love what they are doing. The desire to win comes from a genuine drive, a pure want to win for the team you're playing for, not a desire to win to get paid more money.

College is the time for these athletes to just play because they love what they are doing. If they decide to go pro, then they have all the years they want to get paid. If college athletes begin getting paid as the pros do, there will be little distinction that separates the pro leagues from the college leagues.

Earning money so early could also harm these athletes. It can be dangerous to present a lot of money to young people, especially athletes; it tarnishes their authenticity. If you look at a large group of paid professional players, you can find an abundance that were ruined by their money. If we give these young athletes money before they are ready, they could lose the pure players that they are.

Most importantly, paying college athletes takes away the whole purpose of college. While college athletes do have different experiences than other students, their years at school still serve as this preparation phase of life.

If they were to get paid, these athletes could miss this whole section of life where they find out who they will be in the world. They could miss the important lessons that college teaches, no matter who you are. College is many students' first look at the real world, at real life. It is where they learn to work for the things they want to succeed at. If these young athletes were to get paid, they could entirely miss out on this essential message. In essence, paying college athletes defeats the entire purpose of college.

College sports are unique because the players do not get paid-it's a key reason why people love watching these young athletes compete. Many of them will have the opportunity to get paid for playing later on in their lives, but despite conflicting opinions, paying them while they play college sports is completely unnecessary and could ruin what makes college sports the special athletics that they are.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An old controversial flame has caught fire in these recent months-should college athletes get paid? The spark that really ignited this question was a statement by the state of California that claimed that these college players should, in fact, get paid. California was so confident in their opinion that they presented a new law regarding...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The debate rages on: Should college athletes be paid to play their sport? Read our take on both sides of the argument and watch our accompanying video here!

Originally Posted: Mar 20, 2017

Should college athletes be paid? People who think college student-athletes should be paid often say the students' names and images are used on products and in advertising, among other things, so they should receive some of the profits. Those who say college student-athletes should not be paid argue that they receive scholarships as a form of payment for their talents. Then there are plenty of other questions: Would athletes be paid differently depending on the sport they play? How do you quantify the true worth of a college sports team, especially if it's making the school much more popular overall and bringing in lots of students? Where would the money even come from? The debate could go on and on. Here's a look at each side.

Why student-athletes should get paid

Being a college student-athlete is a full-time job, bouncing between the weight room, the court/field, classes, and film sessions. College athletics are extracurricular activities, but the schedules of the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA) tournaments require an extended period in which the student-athletes must miss school. Not only do they miss class, but they are absent for nationally televised games that make a lot of money and receive millions of viewers, according to Marc Edelman in his article " 21 Reasons Why Student-Athletes Are Employees and Should Be Allowed to Unionize."

Since student-athletes also bring in revenue for their team and college or university, especially in the championship games, those who debate in favor of paying them say the students could receive a small portion of the profits. Yes, pay would vary, just as the universities with the more successful teams receive more television time or money than those with less successful teams. College football and men's basketball programs earn far more than any other athletic program, so these athletes would likely earn more as well. This may not be considered fair pay, but many of those who argue in support of paying college players point out that team popularity and consumers generally determine what is "fair." These sports also tend to support other less popular sports that do not bring in a lot of money on their own.

Student-athletes are the ones working hard out on the court and field. Coaches might have a big effect on a team, but it is up to the athletes to get it done. Coaches receive bonuses for breaking records, reaching the offseason, and winning the big games; the athletes receive none of it, writes Tyson Hartnett for HuffPost. Most profits from college athletics do not go toward academics. Instead, they go to the coaches, athletic directors, and some administrators, reports Edelman. Student-athletes do not need to receive huge salaries like their coaches; rather, they could still be paid a reasonable amount relative to how much the program makes. Scholarships often cover most of the student-athletes' books and room expenses, but even few extra hundred dollars per year could compensate for the lack of time these students have to earn spending money at a regular part-time job, argues Harnett.

It's also important to note that college student-athletes are not only a part of a sports team; they are a part of the college or university's advertising team. For example, the "Flutie effect" is used to describe a surge in college admission following a big sports win. It's named for Boston College quarterback Doug Flutie; he won the Heisman Trophy in 1984, and the College's admissions rose significantly in subsequent years-though the extent of Flutie's impact has been largely refuted by BC officials since then. Still, colleges and universities use their athletic success to promote their school and entice potential applicants. Student-athletes would be paid for this and all the additional benefits they provide for their schools.

A timeout of the regular season college football game between the University of Michigan at the University of Iowa
📸: Madisen Martinez

Why student-athletes should not get paid

In 2013, survey expert John Dennis found that 69% of the public is opposed to paying student-athletes. (This proposed payment would be in addition to the scholarships given in men's football and basketball programs.) If scholarships were taken out of the deal, and only salaries were given, then it would be more fair and affordable for the university, right? Wrong. If salaries were given, then these college student-athletes would have to pay taxes. Depending on the student-athlete's income, those taxes could be high enough to reduce what they earn until they can barely cover tuition, according to John R. Thelin in his article "Here's Why We Shouldn't Pay College Athletes."

Those who opposed paying college student-athletes say scholarships are the best option; there is no question as to what the scholarship money is going toward. Cash or a salary could be spent on wants rather than necessities, potentially leading the athletes into a debt they would not have with the benefit of a scholarship. Furthermore, those who debate against paying student-athletes say it would change the very nature of college athletics. College student-athletes are given a rare opportunity. It's difficult to earn a position on a college team. Though a dream for many, only about 7% of high school athletes move onto the bigger stage. Another 2% of these athletes reach the Division I level, reports Dave Anderson in his article " Top 10 Reasons College Athletes Should Not Be Paid."

If payments were involved, athletes would be given incentive to commit to the college or university with the highest offer. The next year, they may transfer to another school with an even higher offer. Before you know it, these college sports would be 100% a business. This new "business" could also lead to the downfall of other college programs. The money to pay athletes must come from somewhere, which might put the least-popular college programs at risk of being cut. That, in turn, can deprive other students of their chance to gain the education and experience at the college of their dreams, since their desired program will no longer be offered, says Anderson.

Finally, even though these college student-athletes may be playing at an advanced level, they still aren't playing professionally, Anderson notes. It is not their job to play sports; it is an extracurricular activity that is pursued while pursuing a higher education. Student-athletes are going to school to learn, and many are lucky enough to do so for reduced cost, given the often generous athletic scholarships. If these athletes were paid, it would change their motives as students. They are still in college-which is a privilege in itself-while pursuing their dreams of playing a sport.

What do you think?

Whether student-athletes should be paid is an ongoing debate often brought up during championship seasons, especially the college football playoffs and the basketball post-season. What's your view of this heated debate? Will a salary for college-athletes ever come to be? It's up to the NCAA to decide if they'll break away from their current model of collegiate sports, in which "the young men and women competing on the field or court are students first, athletes second."
Are you a hopeful student-athlete? Start exploring colleges and searching for scholarships for your sport on CollegeXpress now!
Like what you're reading?

Join the CollegeXpress community! Create a free account and we'll notify you about new articles, scholarship deadlines, and more.

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The debate rages on: Should college athletes be paid to play their sport? Read our take on both sides of the argument and watch our accompanying video here!

# 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.headline
Should college athletes be allowed to be paid

# data[].attributes.subject
Should college athletes be allowed to be paid

# 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.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CBS Sports and Turner paid over $1 billion a yearfor broadcasting the NCAA March Madness basketball tournament up until 2023. Until now, the broadcasts' college sports stars themselves had no chance of receiving much of that sum (at least not directly). However, the NCAA recently decided to allow college athletes to financially benefit from the use of their names, images and likeness. This decision follows the move byseveral states, led by California, to pass laws allowing the same right, which has been part of a longtime debate about whether college athletes should be paid or not. The question arises primarily regarding football and basketball student-athletes, since they bring in most of the money.

Here are three arguments for and three arguments against paying college athletes:
The difficulty to implement is no excuse
An important argument coming from those who oppose paying college athletes is the expected difficulty involved with implementing such a move. The following are just some of the questions that pinpoint the complexities: Who will pay the college athletes (the NCAA or colleges)? How often will they receive pay? Will there be a salary cap? The main question regards the equitable application of paying college athletes, namely who will get paid and who won't. The details of the new NCAA rules are still being discussed, and will need input from different state legislators and sports associations.

However, since the debate was first sparked over the NCAA's income from broadcasting, the answer seems simple: Theoretically, the athletes to get paid should the ones playing the sports that bring in the big money, namely, men's college basketball and football players. College basketball and football players in particular are the ones who provide a good time for fans who are willing to pay to watch the games, so they deserve to get paid. This is capitalism, and this is how it works in America. In its ruling, the NCAA has distinguished between amateur athletes and potential professional athletes, i.e., those most likely to be recruited by professional teams. Time will tell who ultimately benefits from this decision.
Athletes risk their body and are exposed to permanent damage
One of the best aspects of college sports is the players' enthusiasm. Their love and passion for their respective game is admirable and infectious. But, there is a downside to it; in their fervor to play their best, many college athletes suffer serious injuries that sometimes prematurely end their career.

Setting aside the disturbing fact that a career-ending injury will stop their scholarship, those college athletes put their bodies at risk of permanent damage, without being paid. Hurting your knee might leave you limping for the rest of your life. Suffering concussions can cause dementia and depression, not to mention CTE. Those college athletes who put their bodies on the line for each training session and game they play deserve to be paid for the health risks they are taking.
There's big money involved in college sports anyway
It`s common to think paying college athletes can detract from the purity of the game and ruin that magic. But it won`t. The passion fans see on the court or field is attributed to the fact that there is no money involved.

However, that's not exactly accurate. Big companies are profiting off of branding college athletes, namely, asking them to wear brand apparel during games without paying them to do so. As such, these players feel used. And rightly so. The new rule allowing them to get paid shows that the NCAA and fans are really concerned about preserving the purity of college sports.

Three Reasons Why College Athletes Should Not Get Paid
The difference for college athletes is marginal in term of money
If salaries were to replace scholarships in college sports, athletes would not earn much more. In fact, an impressive $100,000-a-year salary for a college athlete would grant him only a few hundred dollars more per year than a scholarship. According to Money.com, a full athletic scholarship at an NCAA Division I university is about $65,000 a year. This includes tuition, room, board, and books (if you enroll at a college with high tuition). In contrast, a salary will be subjected to federal and state income taxes. Therefore, out of the $100,000, a net of $65,100 will remain for the student. The difference is marginal.
Earning big money too soon can be harmful
People argue that paying collage athletes will help create a sense of financial awareness for them. However, in reality, poor investments, trusting unethical financial advisors and lavish spending habits are some of the main reasons professional athletes find themselves broke after they retire, according to ESPN documentary, "Broke." Without sound financial education, young college athletes may not be equipped to handle so much money.
Paying big money for college students miss the purpose of college
College is about preparing oneself for real life. It is supposed to provide students with tools and abilities to succeed after college. In that manner, college athletes are no different than other college students who practice or intenr in hospitals, law firms or advertising agencies for little to no money. So why should athletes be get paid while the others don't?

A lot of young adults today are impatient and lack the ability to delay gratification. College can teach them a great life lesson: in real life, you have to work hard and wait for your chance. Paying big money to any college student, athlete or academic is far from being the ideal preparation for life.

The Bottom Line: Paying big money to college athletes defeats the purpose of college as a preparatory lesson for life, especially when the monetary difference between a salary and a scholarship is marginal. On the other hand, not paying athletes who risk serious long-term injuries is morally wrong. Was the NCAA right to change the current practice?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CBS Sports and Turner paid over $1 billion a year for broadcasting the NCAA March Madness basketball tournament up until 2023. Until now, the broadcasts' college sports stars themselves had no chance of receiving much of that sum (at least not directly).

# data[].attributes.headline
Majority of college students say student-athletes should be paid.

# data[].attributes.subject
Majority of college students say student-athletes should be paid.