There has long been a debate regarding whether or not college athletes should be compensated for their performances and the money they bring into their universities and programs. Some argue that the use of these athletes’ identities for profit is unfair and immoral, while others give the counter-argument that the perks athletes already receive, particularly a discounted or free education, are priceless in themselves. This issue has been relevant in collegiate sports across the board for many years, but especially in those at the Division I level. Athletics at the college level are often the subject of controversy, much of which is centered on the two highest revenue sports, football and men’s basketball. This controversy can often be traced back to money and the distribution of funds within the programs. 

In an age where, between their salaries and additional sponsorships, some coaches are being payed sums of money unthinkable to the average American citizen, it is hard not to question if some of the additional compensation they are receiving is more well deserved by the athletes that are physically competing and in many times, the ones using the products their coaches endorse. While there is much research to support the fact that initiating salaries for these athletes has potential to change the entire culture that college sports fans know and love, there is equally convincing research that explains the injustice in exploiting these students for billions of dollars of which they receive nothing. 

The governing body of college sports takes the shape of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, or as it is more commonly known, the NCAA. The NCAA essentially creates and enforces the rules that college athletic departments are to follow, including those regarding the allocation of funding and those prohibiting college athletes from receiving payment for pay-to-play sporting events, endorsements, or sponsorships (Yost 54). These regulations fall under the NCAA’s “Principle of Amateurism”. Many “critics [of the NCAA] argue that amateurism is a fiction intended to veil the status of collegiate athletes as employees and deny players the right to participate in profits generated from the intercollegiate athletics department” (Mondello 294). This so-called veil of amateurism allows upwards of one hundred million dollars a year to be pocketed by a handful of administrators, athletic directors, coaches, and the NCAA itself. While these powerful organizations and individuals profit by the millions, the athletes who’s performances are bringing in the revenue don’t get a cut (Edelman “AST” 97).

Supporters of the NCAA’s rules against players receiving compensation, either from their universities or through third party sponsorships, cite that many of these athletes are already being compensated by way of scholarships. Many believe that a free education is invaluable and is more than enough to set these young people up for a successful culture. The NCAA also emphasizes this and supports its rules against paying athletes with claims that education is their main role in the students lives (Mondello 296). However, the culture of college sports as it stands today promotes a very different reality for student athletes. Because of demanding practice, game, and travel schedules, participants in sports at the Division I level are often forced to put their studies on the back burner. Being able to make money from what essentially is the time commitment of a full time job would create financial security and make up for some of the educational opportunities that sports inhibit them from  capitalizing on (Edelman “AST” 74). In addition, the celebrity treatment that athletes often receive gives them a false sense of security in their abilities to make it at the next level, and many of these individuals find themselves set up for failure when they do not go pro as they had anticipated (Nocera). In these situations, athletes who were in difficult financial situations before college find themselves in equally desolate ones after graduation when the glory days of sports have faded (Edelman “AST” 88). Advocates for student athlete compensation and benefits emphasize that allowing a pay-for-play system would give athletes some protection in an instance where an injury ends their career and results in the loss of scholarships and stipends (Mondello 300). If NCAA rules were reformed to look at college sports as semi-professional enterprises rather than commercial enterprises, Title IX would not have to compensate for the additional cash flow, as it does not apply to the pro level. That being said, any reform that would occur within the NCAA must support both athletic and scholarly opportunities for as many students as feasibly possible (McEldowney).

An issue that often comes up in the debate over compensating college athletes is how this would negatively impact low income sports. It is no secret that in terms of collegiate athletics, football and men’s basketball are the moneymakers. With this in mind it must be noted that universities attempting to allocate compensation for student athletes would find themselves paying second string players in high profile programs more than first string players in lower profile sports (Armideo). The fairness of such a situation is debatable considering that these lower revenue sports require just as much of a time commitment and physical demand as their cash cow counterparts. A model that would help reduce this imbalance would allow for student athletes to make money in a form of free lancing to outside companies, not necessarily affiliated with their universities. “David Grenardo, an assistant professor of law at St. Mary’s University in San Antonio and a former football player at Rice, argues that the N.C.A.A. cannot continue to deny athletes the same free-market rights that allow a music major to make money playing music, a business major to make millions creating a tech company, or a coach to make a small fortune endorsing the apparel that his athletes wear for free” (Krouse). A free-lance system as described would pull influence from the almost identical way that Olympic competitors make a profession out of their time spent competing. 

Adopting the Olympic model for athlete compensation in collegiate sports would be particularly beneficial for those collegiate athletes who actually compete in the Olympic Games. Many athletes in popular Olympic sports like swimming, gymnastics, and soccer make it to the games when they are college-aged. Olympians who are not in school use the games as a means of financial income through sponsorships and product endorsements. Unfortunately, athletes who want to compete in the Olympics and simultaneously get a degree have no choice but to pass up seven figure payouts because of NCAA regulations. Even though they are competing in the games as individuals representing their country, if they are also student athletes these Olympians are still barred from compensation. For this reason, many athletes find themselves having to choose between an education and a huge opportunity for financial security. Micheal Phelps, the most decorated and Olympian of all time, qualified for his first Olympic games in 2000 when he was fifteen. During his long career that followed, Phelps eventually had to decide if he would swim collegiately or move forward as a professional swimmer. Acknowledging the huge loss of revenue that going to school would result in, Phelps forewent attending a university. In his case this sacrifice payed off, but those athletes who take this same risk and do not meet the success they had hoped for must be considered (Krouse). Is it fair to tell these athletes that they must choose between an education (and essentially a security blanket in the event that sports do not bring them financial stability) or money that they have the rightful opportunity to earn? Supporters of abolishing the NCAA rules against athlete compensation do not think so, for Olympian student athletes and every student athlete alike, and using the Sherman Law as evidence for their cause they brought these injustices to light in the court of law (Edelman “BDC”). 

The Sherman Law prohibits any restraints that inhibit the competitiveness of a market. In this case the market is sports, and NCAA critics make the case that by keeping students from potential payout, it is violating this clearly stated rule (Yost 45). By disallowing Universities to offer athletes financial benefits beyond scholarships and a limited stipend, the NCAA is taking a recruiting tool out of commission for these schools. This has potential to result in a lesser product when teams get to their respected fields or courts which would in turn lead to lower fan support and an overall loss of revenue. This is what many consider a restraint, therefore in violation of the Sherman Law (Edelman “AST” 69-71). Restraints were also challenged in cases where caps were being put on assistant coaches salaries. The NCAA ignores the precedent set in many court cases that “competitive restraints in educational markets are to be viewed identically to competitive restraints in all other markets” (Edelman “AST” 98). In 2014 a suit was filed by Ed O’Banon, a former basketball player at UCLA, against the NCAA, after he saw himself being portrayed in a video game and wondered why he was not receiving any type of payment for the use of his likeness. O’Banon argued that student athletes should be eligible to be compensated for the commercial use of their image. Courts ruled against the NCAA in O’Bannon v. NCAA, and even after a successful appeal, the ruling was upheld that federal antitrust laws are applicable to the NCAA (Yost 92). Another more recent suit, Jenkins v. NCAA, “seeks to overturn the NCAA rules that place a ceiling on the compensation that may be payed to [college] athletes for their services (Edelman “BDC”). 

The formation of the O’Banon v. NCAA case unfolds in ESPN’s 30 for 30 documentary “Sole Man”. This hour and twenty minute feature tells the story of Sonny Vaccaro, a man who in his lifetime became one of the most influential men in the sport of basketball and in the athletic shoe industry. Vaccaro acted as a middle man for many years and orchestrated deals between college basketball coaches and big name shoe companies. He saw a “win win” situation, where coaches would receive huge payouts, their players would get free shoes, and big name incorporations like Nike, Adidas, and Reebok would get the publicity of Division I teams promoting their brand. In theory this was a victimless system, but as years went by Vaccaro began to see the harm this was causing players who did not make it past the college level and the corruption that was beginning to rule the sport. After Vaccaro’s professional relationships had ended with all shoe companies, he looked at the extreme commercialization of college sports that he essentially set in motion and realized that there was a massive amount of injustice in the system (Sole Man).

Sonny Vaccaro began reaching out to former athletes and lawyers, and after Ed O’Bannon got on board, O’Bannon v. NCAA was born. When O’Bannon won his suit, the court ruled that athletes should have the right to their own brand, whereas before students would sign a waver giving up the rights to their image and likeness to the NCAA. Those who condemn the ruling in the class action trial, many of whom are college coaches and administrators, describe college athletics as a mutually beneficial situation for those involved. However, even of those coaches who disagree with the idea that athletes should get payed, there are some among them who agree with the standpoint that one governing body, in this case the NCAA, should not have sole power in defining amateurism, which is essentially what this whole battle is about. Sonny Vaccaro stands as a symbol for the war on the NCAA’s amateurism rules, and it speaks volumes that he, who has had more of a firsthand look at the evolution of college sports culture than anyone else, is willing to take down an enterprise that he helped build in order to seek justice for the kids who are affected by it (Sole Man).

Moving forward from the O’Bannon case, changes have been made in the NCAA to allow for additional scholarship stipends to cover housing and transportation costs for student athletes, but there is still room for reform. The NCAA continually emphasizes “the significant public policy changes that would need to result if workers compensation laws were liberally applied to [college] athletes” (Mondello 296). If more money came into play for student athletes, recruiting would have the potential to turn into a bidding war, with larger, wealthy schools creating even more of a monopoly over smaller schools than what already exists. Those who take an extreme stance on the issue and rally for athletes to actually be payed university salaries do not account for the fact that athletes may then need to unionize in order to obtain things like healthcare and benefits. A fluctuating salary would be difficult to manage but in such a scenario would be essential in accounting for how performance would affect payment (Armideo). Over the years many have tried to formulate a system that would work efficiently at compensating athletes for their time competing at the college level. Most agree that an actual salary is an extreme take on the issue, but going back to the “Olympic Model”, that athletes should be free to use their talents to support themselves. There is also the argument that scholarships, while valuable in that they provide an opportunity for free education, would more greatly benefit their student athlete recipients if they gave leeway for those students who do not make it past college in their athletic careers, and find that in their four years as students they have not gained the skills needed to be successful. The limit on four years playing a particular sport at the collegiate level would remain, but scholarships would extend an additional two to four years to give athletes a more realistic window to complete their degrees while balancing their careers in athletics. Such a system is outlined by Joe Nocera, reporter for The New York Times, who states, “Although college eligibility would remain at the current four years, the scholarships themselves would give players eight years to complete a degree… Playing football or men’s basketball is a full-time job and then some. The appeal of college athletics, in no small part, is that the players are students at the universities, so they would still have to take classes. But their loads should be reduced during their years of eligibility, and once their playing days are over, they should be able to finish their education free. That’s only fair” (Nocera).

The issue of compensating college athletes is one that is constantly evolving and does not appear to be going away until real change is made. While people on both sides of the arguments make strong cases, at the end of the day it comes down to what is fair in terms of the young adults who participate in these activities. History has shown over and over cases of athletes and their families receiving payment and other gifts, which has fallout for entire programs and all the people involved in them. College athletes do not need to be making millions, but when some of these students, who’s performances are broadcasted nation wide and give them near celebrity status, cannot afford to put food on the table, something is not right. There is no reason that in the multimillion dollar industry that college sports has become, players should not be able to live comfortably and in the cases of those who grew up with little to no money, provide for their families in some shape or form. 
