# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Earlier this week, behind the closed doors of a hotel conference room outside Cincinnati, Mississippi State linebacker Leo Lewis explained to NCAA officials what he said a booster offered a few years ago to try to get him to attend the University of Mississippi: $10,000 cash.

Last week in Clemson, S.C., recruits toured the football team's new $55 million complex, which features an 18-hole miniature golf course, an arcade and a nap room. Over in Alabama, Nick Saban's $11.1 million in compensation this year would make him the highest-paid coach in the NFL, even though Alabama football only generates about $100 million in revenue, compared with $300 million to $700 million by NFL teams.

To some economists and labor lawyers, these stories of boosters waving bags of cash, luxury recruiting palaces and disproportionately large coach salaries are all manifestations of what they believe is a critical problem with college sports in America: The schools are barred from paying the valuable top recruits in lucrative football and men's basketball. A slight majority of American adults - 52 percent - still believe a full scholarship is adequate compensation for college athlete. But the racial divide on the issue is significant, according to a nationwide poll conducted in August by The Washington Post and the University of Massachusetts Lowell.

Read full poll results| How the poll was conducted

More than half of black Americans, 54 percent, support paying college athletes based on revenue they generate, the poll finds. Among white Americans, however, a far smaller 31 percent support paying athletes, while 59 percent are opposed. Hispanics split more evenly: 41 percent say athletes should be paid, while 47 percent say scholarships are adequate.

Dawson Gaymon and Theresa Melki represent opposing viewpoints. Gaymon, a 54-year-old water department employee in Summerton, S.C., thinks athletes should be paid.

"The schools are making an awful lot of money, and the coaches are making millions and millions of dollars, and [the players are] the ones bringing in the money, really," said Gaymon, who is black.

Melki, a 38-year-old nurse from Boston, disagreed.

"The whole reason they go to college is to get an education, and a scholarship should be enough," said Melki, who is white. "They shouldn't be paid to play football."

Analysis: ESPN's Jemele Hill addresses the 'elephant in the room'

The idea of allowing players to earn money if their image or likeness is used through the sale of merchandise has more broad-based support than revenue-based pay, with 66 percent of Americans in favor. A sizable racial gap exists on this issue as well, however. Nearly 9 in 10 blacks (89 percent) say athletes should be paid for the use of their name or likeness, while 60 percent of whites arein favor.

Rhonda Sortullu, 65, a registered nurse from Cincinnati whose son played college football at Miami of Ohio, was among those who opposed pay based on team revenue but supported athletes earning money through the use of their name or image on merchandise.

"I know firsthand how hard it is for these athletes to keep up their grades and compete. It is grueling," Sortullu said. "I don't think they need to make millions of dollars like the pros, but I do feel like they deserve something."

This week, Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany co-wrote an op-ed for the Chicago Tribune defending the current benefits offered to college athletes.

"Despite the claims of critics and plaintiff's lawyers who want to dismantle college athletics as we know it, our students who play sports are not exploited. They are educated," Delany wrote. "College students who play sports are supported at the highest level with strong academic and counseling resources, outstanding facilities, high-quality medical care, unlimited meals and basic benefits the critics take for granted, including scholarships covering tuition, room and board to stipends for living expenses."

As a longtime commissioner, Delany has been a beneficiary of the soaring revenue and controlled labor costs in college sports. The Big Ten's most recent financial disclosures, for 2016, showed Delany's total compensation had risen to nearly $2.4 million - up from $1.1 million a decade earlier, adjusted for inflation - and he's owed more than $20 million in future bonus payments.

"Jim Delany's op-ed is a good example of the noblesse oblige conservative view: 'Look, pay no attention to my $20 million bonus. We are giving these athletes an education,' " said Andy Schwarz, an economist who has consulted for plaintiffs in class-action lawsuits against the NCAA and college conferences over restricted benefits for college athletes.

As Schwarz has discussed his beliefs in public over the years, he said he has typically found blacks more supportive of the idea of paying college athletes and whites more uneasy.

"Whenever you get down to the core of it, they'll say it just doesn't feel right for these young people to have so much money when they're so young. And I say, well, how do you feel about Emma Watson, Hermione Granger, having so much money?" Schwarz said. (Watson, the British actress, reportedly earned more than $20 million by the time she turned 18 from her turns in the "Harry Potter" films.)

Alabama's outside linebackers coach makes more than the university president

According to NCAA data, 48 percent of Football Bowl Subdivision players are black, compared with 38 percent who are white. In men's basketball, the other major money-making sport, 58 percent of Division I athletes are black, while 25 percent are white.

When it comes to political leaning, Republicans (62 percent) are more likely to say scholarships are enough for athletes than Democrats (51 percent), the Post- UMass Lowellpoll finds. Other groups who express support for paying athletes based on revenue include nonwhite men more broadly (53 percent) and people who have experienced a sports concussion (51 percent).

This Post-UMass Lowell poll was conducted Aug. 14-21 among a random national sample of 1,000 adults reached on cellular and landline phones, with overall results carrying a 3.7-point margin of sampling error.

Disagreement on reform

Among the more prominent economists and academics who criticize the current structure of college sports, there remains significant disagreement over whether allowing schools to pay players would provide reform.

Schwarz believes a free market would reallocate the money flowing into larger raises for coaches and more frivolous facilities upgrades to the athletes. Andrew Zimbalist, a professor of economics at Smith College, partially agrees, but he also thinks this wouldn't solve the problem of athletic departments at dozens of Division I schools relying on mandatory student fees and millions in university funds to try to keep up with wealthier athletic departments such as Alabama, Clemson and Texas.

In his new book, "Unwinding Madness" - co-authored with Donna Lopiano, former director of women's athletics at Texas, and Gerald Gurney, past president of the Drake Group, a think tank focused on ending academic corruption in college sports - Zimbalist argues for Congress to provide a limited exemption to college athletic departments from federal antitrust law. This exemption would allow schools to impose universal caps on coach pay and other athletic spending in exchange for the schools agreeing to a series of measures, such as balanced athletic department budgets and expanded postgraduate health care for athletes. Zimbalist's proposal also would allow athletes to earn money through sponsorship agreements and the sale of merchandise.

"If they're students and amateurs, then it doesn't make sense, ethically, to pay the coaches millions and millions," Zimbalist said. "This would tend to promote more competitive balance across the schools, which, presumably, is a good thing . . . and it would save tens of millions for schools in their budgets."

Schwarz and Zimbalist agree, however, that absent a court ruling or legislation, the conference commissioners and university presidents who oversee the current system are unlikely to advocate an overhaul. As more money flows into the top tier of college athletics, coach salaries will continue to rise and new, previously unimaginable facilities upgrades will appear.

Luxury accommodations

Late last month, Alabama football spokesman Josh Maxson led a reporter through the Crimson Tide's football complex. There's a players' lounge with pop-a-shot basketball games and a barber shop, as well as a hydrotherapy room with several waterfalls.

Last upgraded in 2013, Alabama's building in some ways seems quaint compared with what other schools have built since. This year, Texas unveiled a new locker room that featured, instead of old-fashioned nameplates, 37-inch television screens glowing with the face and name of each Longhorns player atop each $8,700 locker.

As he walked down a hallway lined with the NFL jerseys of former Alabama stars - a common feature in college football complexes aimed at showing recruits the promise of professional paychecks to come - Maxson remarked that many NFL teams don't have facilities quite as luxurious as the Crimson Tide's.

"That's because [NFL teams] can recruit their players with this," Maxson said as he rubbed his thumb and two fingers together, the universal sign for cash.

Scott Clement contributed to this report.

Read more college sports coverage:

Ole Miss pinned its NCAA scandal to a rogue assistant coach. He's fighting back.

One school's formula for athletic success: Build a lazy river and (hope) the recruit will come

At Clemson, football success brings windfall tha most schools only dream of

Athletic departments are taking more money in, and spending it fast

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Poll: Majority of black Americans favor paying college athletes; 6 in 10 whites disagree

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earlier this week, behind the closed doors of a hotel conference room outside Cincinnati, Mississippi State linebacker Leo Lewis explained to NCAA officials what he said a booster offered a few years ago to try to get him to attend the University of Mississippi: $10,000 cash.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Harrisburg) - A poll from Bucknell University shows 4 out of 10 people believe college athletes should be paid, if they bring revenue into the university.

But nearly 3 in 10 people had no opinion.

The poll asked 1,000 voters nationwide how they feel about colleges paying their athletes and about California's new law that will allow players to make money from their own image and likeness.

Of people with an opinion, the majority support the law and paying the athletes.

Nearly half of all people who responded said they support the California law.

"Support for paying college athletes from university funds was a little bit lower, but we still found that a plurality of people thought that that was a good idea," said Chris Ellis, director of Bucknell's Survey Research Laboratory. "About 55 percent of people who had an opinion on the issue thought that paying college athletes from university funds was a good idea."

Ellis said an interesting aspect of the results is the divide between members of different political parties.

"Because we know from other data that...Republicans are more likely to watch sports on TV, certainly Republicans more likely to be college football fans, but it turned out to be Democrats that were more supportive of both the California law and of paying college athletes in general," Ellis said.

Men and people under 30 were also more supportive of pay for college athletes then women and people over 30.

The poll's margin of error is +/- 3.1 percent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bucknell poll shows mixed opinions on whether to pay college athletes | WITF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(Harrisburg) - A poll from Bucknell University shows 4 out of 10 people believe college athletes should be paid, if they bring revenue into the university. But nearly 3 in 10 people had no opinion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fifty-two percent (52%) of voters believe that college athletes who play for major revenue generating sports programs be paid. A ScottRasmussen.com national survey found that 32% disagree and 16% are not sure. If the school sells merchandise with a player's name or picture on it, 64% believe the player should receive royalties.

One reason may be that many voters believe it's already happening. Fifty-one percent (51%) think most successful college sports programs cheat by finding a way to pay top athletes under the table. Only 10% don't think this happens.

Some college sports programs generate a lot of money and publicity for their schools. Fifty-six percent (56%) recognize that coaches at such schools are paid more than college professors. Thirty-two percent (32%) of aren't sure. Just 17% incorrectly assume that the coaches make less than college professors or about the same as college professors
ScottRasmussen.com releases new public opinion data every day relating to and other items of interest. Please to receive the latest data and insights each day via email.
But, only 19% believe college coaches should be paid more than professors.

Related data released earlier showed that 61% say the admissions process at elite colleges is corrupt.

We provide daily updates on the president's job approval and the generic congressional ballot. We also provide weekly updates of economic confidence and frequent updates on health care, immigration, Congress, the Supreme Court, and trust in government.

It's all part of our mission to enhance the public dialogue through data-driven analysis that explores the underlying currents of public opinion (read ).

The national survey of 1,001 Registered Voters was conducted March 22-23, 2019 by ScottRasmussen.com and HarrisX, a polling company specializing in online surveys (see Methodology). It has a 3.1 percentage point Margin of Error with a 95% level of confidence.

Neither Scott Rasmussen nor ScottRasmussen.com has any relationship with Rasmussen Reports® (see ).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
52% Believe Big Time College Athletes Should Be Paid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fifty-two percent (52%) of voters believe that college athletes who play for major revenue generating sports programs be paid. A ScottRasmussen.com national survey found that 32% disagree and 16% are not sure. If the school sells merchandise with a player's name or picture on it, 64% believe the player should receive royalties.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fewer and fewer Americans believe that a four-year college scholarship is enough reward for collegiate athletes.

According to the latest Seton Hall Sports Poll, shared first with Yahoo Finance, only 60% of people surveyed this year feel that providing a scholarship is sufficient pay for college athletes. In 2013, that number was 71%.

In addition, 40% of people surveyed say the college athletes are exploited by not sharing in the NCAA's revenue pie. That is the highest the figure has been in the 10 years that Seton Hall has been conducting the poll, though they do not ask the question every year.

Men are more likely than women to believe the students are being exploited, and people age 18 to 44 are much more likely to believe it than those over 45.

"The public seems to be more sympathetic" to the rising costs of being a student athlete that aren't covered by a scholarship, says Rick Gentile, director of the poll, about the results.

It's worth noting that not all respondents necessarily mean that the athletes should be paid a salary. Many of them, Gentile says, "are thinking compensation beyond scholarship," which could manifest in a number of ways. (Some supporters of paying college athletes have proposed stipends for travel, or for parents to travel, or food tickets, or other gifts.)

The issue of compensation for college athletes has come to a head in the past few years for a number of factors: rising revenue of the NCAA; large bonus payments for coaches and athletic directors of football programs that qualify for a bowl game; and the legal case of former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon against the NCAA and against EA Games for using players' likenesses, among other contributing events.

March Madness basketball, of course, is another annual event that gets people humming again about paying college athletes. This year's tournament is already setting gambling records.

Nigel Hayes, a star at The University of Wisconsin, reignited the issue this season when he appeared on ESPN College GameDay holding up a homemade sign: " Broke college athlete, anything helps " with his Venmo username. More than 2,000 fans sent him money.

For the purposes of the poll, Seton Hall surveyed 739 adults across the US, by phone, from March 20 to 22. The poll has a margin of error of 3.7 percentage points.

-
Daniel Roberts is the sports business writer at Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Twitter at @Read more: Poll: 15% of people would bet on the Super Bowl if it were legal Does the NCAA make its money from indentured servants? Super Bowl bets are at an all-time high- and 97% are 'in the dark' Trump presidency could spur legalized sports betting An NFL lawyer hints at the NFL's changing stance on gambling readDanwrite.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Poll: More people than ever believe college athletes should be paid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fewer and fewer Americans believe that a four-year college scholarship is enough reward for collegiate athletes. According to the latest Seton Hall Sports Poll, shared first with Yahoo Finance, only 60% of people surveyed this year feel that providing a scholarship is sufficient pay for college athletes. In 2013, that number was 71%.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
California Gov. Gavin Newsom made history last week when he signed into law SB 206, the Fair Pay to Play Act, which will allow student athletes in the state to get paid for the use of their name or likeness when it goes into effect in 2023. The NCAA vehemently opposed the bill.

But California's move may not be as controversial with the American public as you'd think.

The latest Seton Hall Sports Poll, conducted by the Sharkey Institute at Seton Hall University, finds that 60% of people surveyed say student athletes should be allowed to profit from the use of their name, likeness, or image, while 32% said no, and 8% were unsure. The responses fall along familiar age demographics: 80% of people between ages 18 and 29 support the paid endorsements, but only 50% of people above age 60 do.

Meanwhile, 59% of people say the governing body that should oversee the issue is the NCAA, while only 27% say it should be up to state governments.

Seton Hall surveyed 714 U.S. adults by phone across the country from April 16 to April 19, with a margin of error of 3.8%.

Interestingly, when the Seton Hall Sports Poll asked people in 2017 whether scholarships are sufficient compensation for college athletes, 60% said yes-the same number that now say college athletes deserve to be free to sign endorsement deals.

Those two data points may appear to contradict each other, but it is certainly possible to believe both that a scholarship is enough pay for a student athlete and that those athletes should be allowed to sign endorsements if they can get them. The 60% number in 2017 who said a scholarship is enough pay was also down from 71% in 2013 when asked the same question.

The survey results are telling for the future of college athletics. The NCAA has fought back time and again against any proposals that college athletes earn compensation of any kind under its definition of "amateurism." Critics have retorted that Division I schools make millions on their men's football and basketball programs off the backs of those same "amateur" athletes, who only get paid back in tuition.

NCAA president Mark Emmert has slammed California's bill as an "existential threat" to college sports and a " new form of professionalism."

To be clear, the idea of paying college athletes a salary or stipend is a different conversation from California's bill to allow athletes to sign paid endorsement deals.

Gov. Newsom signed SB206 live on the LeBron James HBO show "The Shop" (James has been an outspoken supporter of paying college athletes) and said on the show that the move is "going to initiate dozens of other states to introduce similar legislation, and it's going to change college sports for the better."

It would appear, based on this particular survey, that more than half of Americans agree.

-
Daniel Roberts David Robinson: NCAA 'shouldn't be the enemy of the athlete' College basketball commission to NBA: Don't let freshmen go pro The first college football video game since 2013 'could be a huge recruiting tool' Why the NCAA bribery probe 'feels like a tipping point' in college sports What March Madness sponsors are saying about NCAA bribery probe is the sports business writer at Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Twitter at @readDanwrite.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Poll: 60% of Americans support college athletes getting paid endorsements

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California Gov. Gavin Newsom made history last week when he signed into law SB 206, the Fair Pay to Play Act, which will allow student athletes in the state to get paid for the use of their name or likeness when it goes into effect in 2023. The NCAA vehemently opposed the bill.

# 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 should be making money in some way related to the sports that they play. It doesn't make much sense for them to not see monetary gain from what they are potentially going to be doing for a living. Sports is one of the most popular industries in the entire world, and it is still growing. Because of this, it only makes sense that college athletes should have some of the same financial opportunities as their professional counterparts.

One argument that has been made to justify college athletes not being paid is that they are not professionals and, therefore, should not receive income. This argument does have some logic behind it, but it simply does not hold up when one takes into account the fact that head coaches are making millions of dollars per season.

The increasing amount of money being made in college sports each year is making it more difficult to argue against paying players, according to a Time article by sports writer Sean Gregory. Nick Saban, who is the head coach of the Alabama Crimson Tide Football team, made $11 million this past season, and defensive coordinator Jeremy Pruitt and offensive coordinator Brian Daboll were both paid over $1 million. How is it okay for players to not get paid at all when coaches are being paid so much money?

Yes, some of these players are getting scholarships and some special privileges, like priority when it comes to registering for courses, but that's just not enough when they are playing sports, especially ones with physical contact. It's no secret that highly physical sports and injuries go hand-in-hand, and a player could have a career-ending injury at any moment while playing. The unsafety of the sports alone should be reason enough for players to earn some kind of revenue from going out and competing for their schools.

If the National Collegiate Athletic Association will not to allow college athletes to be paid for playing the sports, then they should at least let them make money by marketing themselves. Players don't make any money from the selling of merchandise, such as their jerseys. They aren't allowed to market themselves and earn money as a result. Why is that?

According to a 2011 NCAA Survey, many students average 30 hours of practice a week, while some spend over 40. When you combine that amount of time with the time spent in classes and the time spent doing homework, it's practically impossible for them to find time to work a part time job to earn some spending money.

This restriction on college athletes is doing more harm than good. I see no real point in hindering the athletes in this kind of way when other college students can do work within their majors and not be penalized. Music majors with scholarships are completely free to be part of and play in school performances while also going out and performing at clubs to make money. The same goes for students studying acting in college and performing in school films while also being allowed to act in films outside the school. I've never heard anything about students in these majors being prohibited from promoting themselves, so why are college athletes restricted from doing so?

Allowing athletes to sign endorsement deals with brands like Nike and Adidas would be a huge step forward, and it would benefit both the players and the companies. In the past, major shoe corporations were essentially bribing college athletes and their family members as a way to get them to attend certain colleges. Making it legal for athletes to have endorsement deals with companies would eliminate this problem. As an additional benefit, college athletes would also be more likely to stay in school until they graduate, because they would be earning money and wouldn't have to worry about dropping out to financially support their families.

What harm could come from giving college athletes a respectable level of freedom and opportunity when it comes to making money from playing sports? Perhaps at one point in time the practice of not letting them do so made sense, but we are now living in an age when there are so many options for marketing oneself, and college athletes have access to none of them. As a fan of college sports and a friend of several college athletes, I feel obligated to support them in any way I can when it comes to changing these policies so that they can start to make income.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College athletes deserve to be paid for their play - The Triangle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
College athletes should be making money in some way related to the sports that they play. It doesn't make much sense for them to not see monetary gain from what they are potentially going to be doing for a living. Sports is one of the most popular industries in the entire world, and it is still growing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should College Athletes Be Paid? - SmartAsset

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Elite professional athletes regularly draw salaries reaching into the millions. The minimum annual salary for players in the four major sports leagues is well into the six-figure range, and it’s not uncommon for star players to receive multi-year contracts worth more than $100 million. If you’re a c…

# 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
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
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!