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 pay for pay issue that is rarely ever talked about is how race plays a role in the subject 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 up racism 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 African American. Instead of focusing on whether or not college athletes should be paid, which they should, we have to focus on the reasons for the opposition to paying college athletes.

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 team 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. Instead of playing the game, Alabama chose to forfeit three games and pay a $300 fine just because there were 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, when Kentucky integrated its team. For many early years of college football's lifespan, a lot of the best players went to Historically Black Colleges and Universities 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, although 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, which did not occur until 2003. Croom was also one of the first black players to be on Alabama's football team back in the early 1970s (Martin).

College athletics has a very strange dynamic in terms of its demographics, the athletes in Men's Basketball and Football are majority non-Caucasian, making up for 57.1% of football teams and 64.3% of basketball teams (Harper, Williams Jr., Blackman 3). Alternatively, 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 age categories to see eye to eye or feel much empathy for each other. Many spectators of college sports view the teams and the athletes that compete on them as prima donnas. Sometimes they also see college athletes as fortunate to have an opportunity to attend because they might not had been able to attend otherwise due to grades, financial ability, etc., that they would not be able to attend college if they did not play sports. Since a large number of these fans are above the age of 55, they came from "a different time", where race and racism were less taboo and was much less subtle than it is today. 

Back in their time, people were able to be much more obvious in their prejudice; however, today, people use coded language for example instead of saying the N-Word. This causes the viewer to have a skewed vision of what a black college athlete is like and how they behave. This triggers a lot of the coded language from these people, such as referring to a player as a "thug" for something they do not think is appropriate, like celebrating after a big play or the way that they handle themselves off the field. An example of this coded language was after the NFC Championship a two years ago, when Richard Sherman went on a rant directed towards his opponent. There was a severe backlash to his statements with people referring to him as a thug; even though, he had attended and graduated with a Masters from Stanford University. After the negative reaction to him and him being called a thug, Sherman said "The reason it bothers me is because it seems like it's an accepted way of calling somebody the N-word now." Another example of this coded language is when a black college athlete is referred as "well spoken," but it is done in a way where the viewer is shocked at this fact. Prejudice people assume that because of their race, these athletes are delinquent or do not have much of an education. This is something that is regularly said during an award speech or something similar where the winner gives a great speech. Some in the audience do not expect a black male to be able to give a decent speech even though he attends college and there is no real reason to think that he would not be well spoken. This coded language goes both ways, as white athletes are often described as underwhelming athletic; however, they are also often given the distinction of different "intangibles" such as being "gritty", "cerebral" or a "coach on the field/court." These descriptions are often seen during broadcasts on national television and during evaluations of draft prospects for professional leagues. These perceptions of players 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.

There are of course college sports that do not have a majority black participation, some have a majority white demographic and some are more proportional to the general population. These sports definitely do face less racial implications in how decision are made. This is of course due to the less black athletes, but I also think that it is because these sports are less popular and therefore are not given the same attention that Men's Basketball and Football are given. They also do not generate the same amount of money so there is less animosity towards the athletes. An athlete in these sports are still receiving at least a discounted education, but because they do not have the same open market value, viewers do not sense as much entitlement from these athletes. 

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 the fact that these athletes are mini-superstars on their campuses and that they love their schools is what 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. This idea 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 that college athletes should not be paid (Wallsten, Nteta, and McCarthy).

Jay Bilas, an ESPN analyst and former college basketball player has stated, "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, the issue of pay for play is not that the NCAA is making a boatload of money, the problem is 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 many issues with this idea. One issue is that the scholarship they receive, until the last few years, were year-to-year because of 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 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 therefore 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. They did this so that they could become eligible for their respective sports (Barrett). Many of these classes were a part of the African-American Studies classes; 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 foreign 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 since 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 8% of 183 Football and Basketball players between the years of 2004-2012, read below a fourth grade level and 60% were in a middle school range of literacy (CNN, Ganim). 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 a severe version of what is happening, it is 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, their presence on college campuses is much less significant, only making up approximately 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 less black male student athletes than other student athletes. Only one campus that was studied had graduation rates of black male student athletes and black male students that were even comparable (Harper, Williams, Blackman). Our own university, University of South Carolina, also does not do a good job at making sure African American student athletes graduate. 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 (Harper, Williams, Blackman). According to the study done by Harper, Williams Jr., and Blackman, there are many reasons for this discrepancy. They found that professors spend less time out of the classroom with black male student athletes than they do regular undergrads. Professors were also much less likely to be lenient with a regular student rather than an athlete. However, one thing that is not a reason for this discrepancy is the amount of athletes going to the pros, as less than two percent of men's basketball and football players will go pro. These athletes also face a stereotype when their peers see them. They are viewed as "dumb jocks" who are only there to play sports do not care about their academics and while that might be the case in some instances, it also creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. These athletes are told from a young age that they do not need to work hard in school because they are such great athletes or others tell them that they are not working hard because of their athletic status. As Harper said in another paper, 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 including analysts, sports pundits, writers and everyday fans to compare it 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, athletes get their tuition and at some colleges their full cost of living paid for. In my opinion, these pundits and analysts are overstating how big of a problem 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 the Emancipation Proclamation. Even though the slaves were set free, it did not end the prejudice against them (Starkey). That is where the Jim Crow Laws came in; they restricted the newfound freedoms of freedmen as their way of trying to keep slavery alive. Freedmen 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 freedmen, NCAA athletes are not able to receive the full amount of compensation, which they deserve due to the massive amount of money that they make the NCAA. 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, which is a practice that was instituted to try and provide an equal playing field for everyone no matter his or her race. Over time it has become an issue that is very split among whites and people of color. For most non-whites, it is a practice that makes their race not a factor so they are on the same 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, is a form of affirmative action. Whites on the other hand view affirmative action as an unfair benefit that gives 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 be paid a salary for it.

There are a large number of people who will look at this issue and argue that race is not a worthwhile part of this issue. They will say that it is not worth considering due it being a non-factor and the fact that it is just people trying to pull the race card in order to add controversy to the issue. These people will also believe that because they or the people that they surround themselves with are not against paying college athletes, that it means that it is no one's reason for objection. However, they are either lying to themselves in saying that race does not play a role or they are only looking at the people that they associate with, a small group compared to the general population. I believe that if they were to do more research into this subject and how race plays into it, they would get a better understanding of how race affects the issue. I also think that if they were to read this paper it would open their eyes as they would be able to see the facts that I have presented and might come to support my argument on the issue of pay for play. Even if they do not change their opinion, their argument is still very weak due to the history of college athletics and how race has always been a big factor. Race has also played a role in our entire nation's history and for these people to ignore it now is to be blind of the past and assures that racial improprieties will continue to happen. That is why it is so important for not just the people who disagree with my argument, but everyone to look at and address the issue of race in college athletics and the pay for play debate.

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 amount of 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, 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 do so, we must first face the elephant in the room, which is how race affects the conversations that we have about pay for play.
