Paying college athletes has become a wide spread, polarizing topic especially in the last few years as the NCAA's revenue has skyrocketed. However, one part of the issue that is rarely ever talked about is how race places a role in the issue as a whole. When I first began to research and began to prepare for this paper, I thought I was going to be writing an argumentative paper about how college athletes should be paid, but once I began my research I realized that the issue of race in paying college athletes is something that has been studied and analyzed. Even though, it has been researched, few people actually bring it up in the pay for play debate. Many people do not want to address the factors of race because it is a topic that people rarely what to talk about let alone even address that it is there. However, in the last few years it has become increasingly apparent that this is an issue that must be addressed because a large majority of college athletes in Men's Basketball and Football are non-whites. Instead of focusing on whether or not college athletes should be paid, which they should, we have to focus on the reasons for its opposition.

College athletics has a very strange dynamic in terms of its demographics, the athletes in Men's Basketball and Football are majority non-white, making up for 57.1% of football teams and 64.3% of basketball teams (Harper, Williams Jr., Blackman 3). On the flip side, the people who run the NCAA are mostly white, and around 80% of viewers of college athletics are white. Also, nearly half of viewers of college sports are above the age of 55 and around 74% are older than 35 (Thompson). The athletes who participate in these college sports are actual college students, so they are around the ages of 18 to 24. The difference in age and race can cause a disconnect among the groups that can make it hard for the two groups to think eye to eye or feel much empathy for each other. Many viewers of college sports view the teams and athletes that compete as prima donnas and people that are fortunate to have the opportunity to attend because they believe that for whatever reason, whether it be grades, financial ability, etc., that they would not be able to attend college if they did not play sports. Due to the fact that a large number of fans are above the age of 55, that means that they came from "a different time", where race and racism were less taboo and was much less subtle than it is today. This causes the viewer to have a skewed vision of what a black male college athletes is like and how he behaves. This causes a lot of the coded language to come out of these people, such as when they refer to a player as a "thug" for something they do not think is appropriate whether it be celebrating after a big play or the way that they handle themselves off the field. Another example of this coded language is when a black male college athlete is referred as "well spoken," but it is done in a way were the viewer is shocked at this fact. They just assume based off of their race that they are a delinquent and also do not have much of an education. Their perceptions of these athletes definitely play a huge role in the discussion of whether or not college athletes should be paid. These ideas more often than not cause a strong opposition to the idea that college athletes should be paid.

Mark Emmert, the President of the NCAA in an interview said "one of the biggest reasons fans like college sports is that they believe the athletes are really students who play for a love of the sport" (Wallsten, Nteta, and McCarthy). What he is saying definitely does have merit, as that is one of the things that makes college sports so interesting. These athletes are playing for a school that they chose to go to and are playing in front of their college peers and adoring fans. However, these ideas of amateurism and the student-athlete are much more readily accepted by white people than it is by non-whites. According to a study that was conducted by Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), around 53% of blacks supported paying college athletes, while only 22% of whites supported the idea (Wallsten, Nteta, and McCarthy). According to two independent studies, this drastic difference is there because "negative racial views about blacks were the single most important predictor of white opposition to paying college athletes." In one of the studies, some of the participants were shown a "group pictures of young black men with stereotypical African American first and last names", while the control participants were shown no picture at all. The study found that the white people that were shown the picture, were more adamant in that college athletes should not be paid (Wallsten, Nteta, and McCarthy).

Jay Bilas, an ESPN analyst and former college basketball player has said "It is not immoral for the NCAA to make money off of athletics. But it is profoundly immoral for the NCAA to restrict athletes from receiving compensation while everyone else profits" (Wallsten, Nteta, and McCarthy).  I believe that this sums up the problem very well, as the issue is not that the NCAA is making a boatload of money, the issue arises in the fact that the athletes are not compensated for their efforts. Many critics of pay for play will say that the athletes are compensated because they receive a free education; however there are a whole host of issues with this idea. One of them being the fact that the scholarships that they receive until the last few years were year to year due to a law that was passed restricting four year scholarships. However, the majority of schools still will only give multi-year scholarships to a few players on each team and the majority of athletes still receive year to year scholarships (Solomon). So if the athlete were to get injured then they would be out of luck and out of an education. The players do not even have to be injured to lose their scholarships, as if they do not meet the on the field expectations of their coaches they could be forced out of the school and made to transfer to another school. The NCAA goes out of its way to emphasize the idea of a "student-athlete"; however, they do not seem to realize the hypocrisy of the fact that a scholarship and there for an education can be taken from an athlete whenever an administration feels like it. Another downfall of the education argument, is that the education they are receiving in some instances is less than stellar.

For example, The University of North Carolina has come under fire in recent years for the way that they were handling the academics of their student athletes. North Carolina was allegedly giving its athletes "paper classes", which were classes in which there was no professor and the athletes were instructed to take the class by university officials as a way of getting easy As and A-s so that they could become eligible for their respective sports (Barrett). Many of these classes were a part of the African-American Studies part of the school, something that is a bit ironic due to North Carolina's racial past. One of the classes that many of the athletes took was Swahili as their language, but when many of the athletes were interviewed after they were out of college almost none of them were able to speak a word of Swahili (Barrett). For many of the players these classes were entirely necessary as according to Mary Willingham, a former counselor at UNC, around 25% of athletes in Men's Basketball and Football are not equipped to handle community college work, let alone one of the top universities in the United States. She also has said that of 183 Football and Basketball players between the years of 2004-2012, around 8% read below a fourth grade level and 60% were in a middle school range of literacy (CNN, Illiterates in big time college sports). Now to me that does not sound like much of an education and that is what has led many critics of the NCAA to call exploitation.

That is one extreme example of an institution doing a poor job of supervising the athletes that attend the school and the academic departments that make up their university. Even though North Carolina is an extreme version of what is happening, it is really just a symbol of the improprieties that happen at almost every major Division 1 university in the country. Black male athletes make up the majority of people on Men's Basketball and Football teams; however the presence on college campuses is much less significant as they only make up around 2.8% of degree seeking undergraduates (Harper, Williams, Blackman). Between four different studies it was found that, "50.2% of Black male student-athletes graduated within six years, compared to 66.9% of student athletes overall, 72.8% of undergraduate students overall, and 55.5% of Black undergraduate men overall." Nearly every single university studied, graduated black male student athletes at a lower rate than other student athletes and other undergraduate students and on only one campus was the graduation rates of black male student athletes and black male students even comparable (Harper, Williams, Blackman). One university that did not do a good job of graduating black male student athletes is our own, the University of South Carolina. Black male student athletes made up 4.2% of undergraduate students, but they were 71.7% of players on the Men's Basketball and Football teams. They also had only a 40% graduation rate which was 21% lower than student athletes as a whole and they were 27% lower than students at the University as a whole (Harper, Williams, Blackman). There are a variety of reasons for this discrepancy, one of which is the support that these athletes receive as in the study that was done by Harper, Williams Jr, and Blackman they found that professors spend less time out of the class room with black male student athletes than they do regular undergrads. Professors were also much less likely to be lenient towards an athlete than they were a regular student. These athletes also face a stereotype when they are seen by their peers. They are seen as "dumb jocks" that are only there to play sports and that they do not care about their academics and while that might be the case in some instances it also creates a self-fulfilling prophesy. These athletes are told from a young age that they do not need to work hard in school because they are such athletes or they are told by others that they are not working hard because of their athletic status. As someone put it they are viewed as, "One could easily summarize their status as Niggers with balls who enroll to advance their sports careers and generate considerable revenue for the institution without learning much or seriously endeavoring to earn their college degrees." (Harper, Williams Jr., Blackman)

The NCAA's way of running their organization clearly has its flaws some of which have caused some people to the way that slavery was conducted. Their argument consists of the fact, that a majority white leadership is taking advantage of a majority non-white "workforce" for their own gain and profit. Both groups receive free things in return for their work, as slaves got living quarters and food, while athletes get their tuition and at some colleges their full cost of living paid for. In my opinion these people are overstating how big of a problem that the NCAA is presenting, as comparing it to one of the worst things that humans have ever done seems a little much, but it is a polarizing way to talk about the subject and can really start a discussion of the merits of this idea. I believe that they are on the right path as race plays a large role in the pay for play discussion, but instead of slavery I think a more fitting comparison is the Jim Crow Laws that the south had after the Civil War and Emancipation Proclamation. Even though the slaves were set free, it did not mean the end of prejudice against them. That is where the Jim Crow Laws came in, they restricted the newfound freedoms of freedman as there way of trying to keep slavery alive. Freedman were restricted in their ability to make money as they were kept from jobs that would allow them to flourish as people instead for the most part the only work they could get was working in the fields. Like these freedman, NCAA athletes are not able to receive the full compensation that the money that make for the NCAA suggests that they should get. They are not allowed to live up to their full potential due to rules and restrictions that have been set by a majority white administration. 

Many social issues are split along racial lines and the idea of paying college athletes is no different. A prime example of this is affirmative action, it is a practice that was instituted to try and provide an equal playing field for everyone no matter what their race was. Over time it has become an issue that is very split among whites and non-whites. For most non-whites, it is a practice that makes their race a non-factor and they are on the level as a white person. It is also meant to be a way that gets more African Americans onto college campuses and makes the collegiate environment more diverse. Due to the fact that athletic scholarships for Men's Basketball and Football are being given to a majority African American base, it can be seen as a way to increase African Americans on college campuses and in turn a form of affirmative action. Whites on the other hand view affirmative action as an unfair benefit that give African Americans an edge in the job market and in admissions to schools. These two differing philosophies on affirmative action carry over to attitudes on pay for play. African Americans view it as a proper way to compensate hard working college athletes that are putting their bodies on the line for their schools. While whites feel that blacks are already receiving enough for what they are doing on a football field through the free education that they receive and do not need to paid a salary for it.

For a long time not only were athletes not compensated for their hard work, but some were not even allowed to participate at the highest level of their sports. It was not until around the 1960s that college athletics were widely integrated before then many schools would refuse to play any contest that featured a black athlete (Martin). For example, in 1940 Alabama's baseball traveled to the University of Vermont for a series, once they got there Alabama realized that Vermont had two African American players on their roster. So instead of playing the game, Alabama chose to forfeit three games and pay a $300 fine just because there was two non-white players. Alabama's football team had a similar policy for many years and it lasted until 1960, when Bear Bryant finally gave up the policy (Martin). It took until 1967 for the first integrated SEC basketball team to be created, as that was when Kentucky integrated its team. For many early years of college football's lifespan, a lot of the best players went to HBCUs and these players went onto the NFL to become Hall of Fame talents. Some of these teams were so good and considered so highly that they were said to have more talent than Bear Bryant's Alabama teams, many of those Alabama teams won their year's national championship. This exclusion does not only apply to the athletes that play the sports, it also applies to the people that coach them. Sylvester Croom was the first African American head coach in the SEC, but that took until 2003. Croom was also one of the first black players to be on Alabama's football back in the early 1970s (Martin).

Race is a rarely talked about angle when it comes to paying college athletes; however it is one of the most important parts of the issue that must be talked about. It permeates so much of the discussion about pay for play, but many of the people do not even realize that it is there and how big of a role it plays in shaping the views of both critics and supporters of pay for play. It took an absurd time for African Americans to even be able to play college athletics at all universities, but now they face the problem of how they are perceived by a majority white audience. The NCAA now makes over a billion dollars just on March Madness alone and is run by a majority white executive base that keeps its players from receiving any sort of compensation that is close to their market value. They only receive a scholarship, but even that can be very deceiving in how much it is worth and how it is given out or taken away from the NCAA's athletes. Not only do we need to start paying college athletes, but in order to that we must first face the elephant in the room, which is how race affects the conversations that we have about Pay for Play.
