Tracy Reardon

SPM 373
Paying College Athletes
Introduction
The controversial topic of whether to pay college athletes is a hot button issue now more
than ever. College athletes, especially those in large Division I schools are a huge draw to why
students apply to those specific colleges. These athletes incidentally make larger schools more
money just by playing a sport and being a source of entertainment for the student body as well as
the neighboring communities. On the other hand, to turn around and tell each athlete they would
get paid simply because they bring in revenue for the school would send any school into debt.
Paying each student athlete would be detrimental to the schools budget. In addition to simply
putting out the money to pay each athlete there would be no cut and dry way to determine which
athletes make what salary and the reasoning behind it. For this one reason and many others
stated below, college athletes should not be paid.
For the above reasons as well as many more, the debate between whether to pay college
athletes is something that is highly discussed in the sport industry across the board. Like almost
everything else in our society, the sports world has evolved over time. An example of this is that
the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), formed in 1905, which has a set bylaws
requiring college student-athletes to be amateurs in order to be eligible for intercollegiate athletic
competitions. In the past 108 years, collegiate athletics have changed dramatically. Although this
may be the case, there are many reasons on both sides of the debate as to why this rule should
still be in effect today. College athletes do benefit their university in many ways but that does not

mean they should be paid. To remain an amateur level athlete, that means you do not get paid.
This is why I firmly believe that college athletes should not be paid.
Sports have evolved to help create the identity and distinction between colleges across
the country. Since athletics have become a crucial ingredient of the identity of institutions that
means that winning is that much more important. In turn, this meant that financial favors to
freshman recruits and other student athletes to get them and keep them on the team were even
more significant (Markovits, 2013).
The argument in favor of paying college athletes brings up many valid points. A player
that has so much worth within his or her school should be able to brand him or herself and make
money off of their talents. It is not fair that everyone else within the institution such as coaches,
admissions offices and alumni operations can make money from athletes while they themselves
see no compensation whatsoever. All kinds of people beyond campus are also making money
from the unfair system set in place. For example, football game days increase college-town
economies greatly. Bars, fast food places, hotels, ticket brokers, stadium vendors, parking
attendants and many others rely on home games for revenue (Gregory, 2013).
According to a 2012 study from a global research firm, a seasons worth of Texas A&M
home football games generate $86 million in business for Brazos County, where the school is
located. Even though the players are the ones with the talent they are not allowed to be
compensated for bringing in that type of revenue because a group of college presidents, athletic
directors and conference commissioners set the players wages at zero. The tension of this has
been going on decades. It has gotten to be an even greater issue than it was before because the
magnitude of money that is being talked about has gotten extremely large. The numbers are in

fact too large to ignore. College athletes are mass audience performers and should be rewarded
as such (Gregory, 2013).
Students are used as a tool to draw in students and spectators to campuses. The college
athlete is the most available publicity material any college has and no statement better explains
why American colleges are so invested in modern sports as well as why the athletes have every
right to a paycheck. A college wants students, it wants popularity, and above all it wants money;
always more money.
Around the country, Division I players are essentially working full-time jobs while going
to school; they deserve to be paid more than a scholarship that does not cover all the costs of
them being a student-athlete (Gregory, 2013). Even full ride athletic scholarships do not
cover the full cost of attending school; athletes are often short money for other essential expenses
on top of tuition, room and board, books and daily living fees. Division I mens basketball and
football players spend 40 hours per week on their sports. Whether it be conditioning, lifts,
practices and game days they devote almost a full work week to their sport. Former Georgia
tailback Richard Samuel said he was more of an athlete-student rather than a student-athlete.
To not be able to compensate student athletes is one thing but to turn around and pay a
coach millions of dollars is obscene. According to USA Today (Gregory, 2013), the average
salary for major college football coaches have jumped more than 70% since 2006, and are now at
$1.64 million. College president and conference commissioners are fond of calling sports the
front porch of their campuses.
Schools would have to spend millions of dollars to buy the advertising and media that
these athletes and their teams make while appearing on ESPN or other sports channels. The most
valuable television products are things you have to watch in real time and one of the few of those

is sports. There are many instances in which schools see big jumps in applications after a highprofile playoff or championship season. For example, after Butler made its first Final Four in
2010 and a repeat appearance the following season, the undergraduate applications increased a
drastic 43% (Gregory, 2013).
The time is coming where schools will have the option to share their rising sports revenue
with the athletes within their institution. Schools are about to set record television payouts for the
next decade and beyond, the idea of paying players is no longer just a distant debate but a very
close reality. Schools could pay players whatever they would like within the free market, or the
salaries could be subject to regulation. There are such things as salary caps that exist in the
National Basketball Association and the National Football League so they are most definitely fair
game for college sports as well.
The way it would work would be that athletes would be eligible for payments in addition
to any scholarship. Most schools would most likely pay only football and mens basketball
players since those sports are what produce the majority of the revenue. The total amount that
any university could pay out would be set at a cap of $1.5 million. Many experts agree that this is
a conservative number given the millions in revenue that sports and TV deals provide to the
schools throughout the seasons (Gregory, 2013).
Also, athletes would be able to make money in other ways such as from a third party.
Universities would give the athletes the right to secure sponsorships, star in a commercial or
offer their signatures for money. That way, players such as Johnny Manziel would not be put in
the situation he was put in. Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson was quoted on
saying that he thought it was crazy that getting money for his (Manziels) signature was not
allowed. Adrian said actors, actresses-these people can sign things and get paid for it. How

come this kid cant? How come a kid thats at a high level that is going to be offered a big amount
of money, cant sit down and be like, Damn, this is my decision? (Gregory, 2013).
Lifting the restriction on athlete commercial opportunities is a great way to step toward
compensating them for the value they generate without having to take from the institutions
budget. Having a third party being the source of their remuneration would not cost the schools
anything. Of course there would be guidelines on what sponsorships they would be allowed to
take part in and the school can reject the right to anything that is not moral or portray the school
in the fashion they want (SBJ 2013).
Schools could require that players remain academically eligible in order to receive any
kind of payments. This would ensure that athletes are keeping up with their academics and
excelling in the student part of their college career. Sponsorships could especially benefit female
college stars who might not have the same access to professional opportunities that men do.
Sports are indeed a big business and colleges are recognizing that now more than ever.
Schools are starting to see the value that the exposure has and the revenue that it brings to their
institutions. The NCAA membership has stalled a plan giving schools the option to offer a
$2,000 stipend to cover expenses beyond tuition, room and board, books and fees (Gregory,
2013). Full membership has overridden it with some smaller and lower level schools of Division
1 have said they can not afford it or that they just were not interested in changing their ways. The
divide between the large and small schools is part of the greater debate on the NCAAs
governance structure (Schneider).
College athletes know that they are more valuable now than they ever will be. To be able
to capitalize on this prime time in their lives would be phenomenal. There is no doubt that
athletes are marketing tools for the programs but never get to see any of the proceeds. In this

country, in todays day, it just seems to be backwards. Schools can most definitely find a better
way of being fair to the athletes who bring in all the revenue for them (Schneider).
For years people were scared to challenge the system because of fan backlash but more
and more fans are realizing how unfair the system is. Fans donate big money to athletic
departments for the right to pay big money for season tickets to home games, even as the biggest
games move to neutral sites anyway, because that is where the biggest revenue is.
If players remain quiet about it though, most likely nothing will happen and the people
who disagree with the payment of athletes besides scholarships will be very content.
The Bottom Line
Although these points stated above are all good and well, there is just no possible way for
universities to pay college athletes. Big Ten Commissioner, Jim Delany said the he intensely
opposes paying college athletes, and that if players do not like what college athletic departments
have to offer they can hire an agent and train for the pro leagues. The issue is that the NCAA
works as a cartel. Schools collude to prevent players from seeking compensation anywhere. The
NCAA prevents players from getting paid by third parties and many people believe that this is
extremely fair. College players are seen to be at an amateur status and that is what separates them
from the professionals, which directly relates to why they should not be compensated
(Rosenberg, 2013).
The historic justification for not paying players is that they are amateur student-athletes
like stated above and the value of their scholarships which, are sometimes worth in excess of
$100,000 over a four-year span is enough of a payment (Gregory, 2013). Going the next step
and agreeing to pay college athletes beyond what they get now as part of their scholarships
would basically turn all of the college athletes in universities around the nation into employees of

the institution they play for. The current financial status of most, if not all, athletic departments
prohibits any additional financial layout such as payment to athletes. Payment to student-athletes
would require the NCAA to lose its current nonprofit status (Voepel, 2011).
The argument that also comes into play is that paying only male athletes could face a
challenge under Title IX, the federal law that requires gender equity in sports. By Title IX law,
schools would require payment to all athletes, not just male or the stars of the school, which
would make total payments to each and every athlete unachievable. Title IX guarantees gender
equality in athletic opportunities in all respects. This includes the accommodations and
conditions of those opportunities. Under Title IX , it protects women from discrimination in any
education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. This means that if mens
sports were to be getting a stipend of some sort than that means that the womens teams would
need to receive them as well (Voepel, 2011).
Some other risks involved that could reinforce why players should not be paid are that
richer schools could buy up talent, disrupt competitive balance within conferences and recruiting
would pretty much be extinct. There could be many contract disputes between players of who
gets what salary and so on. Also, alumni and fans could be turned off by an even more
professionalized game and paying players could make even more of a mockery of education. It
sends a bad message and is not what college is supposed to be about. Schools never want to go
down the path of creating an employee-employer relationship with their student-athletes. Higher
education should always be upheld and kept to be higher education (Salvadore, 2013).
Conclusion
Participation in athletics is considered a privilege to most institutions and not a right. It is
supposed to aid in the educational experience and help shape students into better adults for when

they reach the real world. Both sides of the argument presented above have their pros and cons
but paying college athletes is not in reach of a majority of universities. The athletes should
remain athletes instead of employees. That is why the NCAA should keep student athletes off
payroll and keep them at the amateur level.

References
Gregory, S. (2013, Sept. 16). Time cover story: It's time to pay college athletes. Retrieved from
http://www.newhaven.edu/612904.pdf
Issue of whether to pay college athletes explored in time magazine cover story (2013). Sports
Business Journal Retrieved from
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2013/09/06/Colleges/PayingAthletes.aspx
Markovitz, A. (2013, Sept. 20). A plea for remunerating student-athletes in revenue-generating
college sports. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andreimarkovits/paying-student-athletes_b_3951427.html
Rosenberg, (2013). Debate over antiquated NCAA goes way beyond pay-for-play Retrieved from
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130927/jim-delany-commentsncaa-accountability-act/
Salvadore, (Nov. 23 2013). Top 10 reasons why college athletes should not be paid. Yahoo.com
Retrieved From http://voices.yahoo.com/top-10-reasons-why-college-athletes-not-be12022203.html?cat=14
Schneider College students' perceptions on the payment of intercollegiate student-athletes.
College Student Journal, 35(2), 232-41.
Voepel, (2011) Title IX a pay-for-play roadblock ESPN.com Retrieved from
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6769337/title-ix-seen-substantial-roadblockpay-play-college-athletics