

Do college athletes deserve to be paid for the extensive time and effort they put into their sports? NCAA players deserve to be paid a salary by their respective schools and the NCAA due to the massive amounts of revenue and recognition that they generate for their schools. Currently athletes are paid only through scholarships, which are on average is about 25,000 dollars per year. Moreover, many college athletes are unable to make it to the next available league, whether it is the NBA, NFL, etc. Not only are college sports almost always on television or social media but they also account for thousands of jobs. These sports also generate massive amounts of revenue through television, ticket sales, and equipment sales. However, the college athletes that generate this massive entertainment industry and make absolutely no portion of it. In addition, the NCAA can place unfair restrictions on these athletes, and if any of these rules are broken the NCAA can administer any punishment that they feel is necessary. I firmly believe that these players deserve to be paid based off the revenue they generate for their respective school since the NCAA and colleges are taking advantage of the unpaid labor that these collegiate athletes provide. By choosing to pay these athletes it will allow for student athletes to experience the full college experience that the average student has, as well as establishing a more equal and beneficial relationship between the NCAA and student athletes.

The main argument that is used against paying college athletes is that there is currently not any proposals for a fair system that could be implemented that would determine the value of an athlete. However, after analyzing the article “An Economist Explains Why College Athletes Deserve to be Paid” by David Zurin, he was able to use both research and standard economic principles to develop a system that would assess a value to players. This system would allow for universities to effectively pay every athlete that brings in over a set value to the university. Moreover, Zurin is a well-known economist who has conducted research and written numerous articles for The Nation, which allows for his system to be viewed as credible. Furthermore, Zurin makes sure to reiterate that the college athletes who play for the less popular sports would not receive as much compensation as sports such as football and basketball. The reasoning behind a sport based system is that it helps establish a system that rewards the players that bring in the most money to the university, this also makes sure that the payment system does not cripple the respective university. In addition, Zurin decides that along with the current payment system he also proposes a salary cap for this system. This is a major part of the system since it still allows for the players to be paid, but it does not allow for bigger colleges to use the payment to recruit higher tier players. Furthermore, the salary cap also restricts the bigger colleges from being able to pay their athletes more over the younger colleges, this would result in the bigger colleges dominating the major sports. Zurin goes as far as to provide what the salary cap would be for the major sports, he writes “In basketball the cap would be about $650,000. In football, it would be $3 million” (Zurin 11). Zurin provides exact figures to reinforce these numbers by mentioning the ludicrous salaries that head coaches are being paid from these programs. He also goes on to say that the scholarships given out by teams could be reduced to 60, instead of 85, this is more similar to that of NFL teams, which are 53 player rosters. By choosing to reduce the scholarship count it allows for the football programs to have additional capital which they can then use to pay the remaining higher tier athletes. In conclusion, through establishing an effective and fair system to pay college athletes, it allows for one of the most challenging aspects of paying the athletes to be solved.

In addition to establishing an effective method to paying college athletes, in the article “A Way to Start Paying College Athletes” by Joe Nocera, Nocera focuses on the intricacies of paying each college athlete. Nocera proposes a minimum salary of $25,000 per player in each sport. He concedes that this minimum salary would by no means make the athletes rich, but it would allow for them to experience a typical college experience. College athletes currently are unable to apply for jobs since their scholarships restrict them from working during the school year, this restriction by the NCAA allows for the schools to take further advantage of the athletes. In addition to the minimum salary, Nocera also introduces a free-market aspect, he states that the minimum salary would only consume half the cap. He goes on to write “The rest of the money would be used as a recruiting tool, so that a star player could be offered additional money as an inducement” (Nocera 14). By utilizing a free market aspect, it gives more power to college athletes by allowing them to choose a school based not on promises but instead cash. Currently colleges and the NCAA have immense power over the college athletes that they currently are taking advantage of in many aspects, however by introducing a free market payment system it allows for the players to benefit. 

One of the most crucial aspects of the current NCAA rules and regulations is that the players have many unfair restrictions and regulations that they must abide to. Currently, the NCAA does not enable players to work during the school year, this completely stops them from gaining any revenue. By halting any income that players receive it allows for the colleges and NCAA to have complete power over many college athletes that come to school with little money. In the YouTube video “Crossfire: Should Student Athletes be Paid” by Christine Brennan they take testimonies of well-known and successful college athletes and analyzed what their experience was like throughout college. Hartnett interviews Kareem Abdul-Jabbar about what it was like playing as a college athlete, and what their everyday routine was like. Kareem talks about how many hours he contributed to school as well as playing for a major Division 1 school. He also goes an inside viewpoint of what it was like to create massive revenue for his school, yet receive none of it. Kareem goes on to say “football and basketball are on national television, it is incredible how much money is being made, yet the people who are performing to generate this cash, do not get to receive any of it” (Kareem 3:30-3:57). By showing the perspective of a college athlete it shows just how much the college athletes are being taken care of.

In addition to a testimony from a well-known college athlete, Zachary Roth, a prestigious lawyer, writes in the article “NCAA Amateurism: Setting an Equitable Standard”, throughout it he focuses on the bylaws of the NCAA that allow for them to take advantage of college athletes. Roth also examines the NCAA’s bylaws and the possibility of instituting a payment solution for college athletes. He goes on to write “In a system that plays a critical role in future athletic and career success, individuals must be treated equally. Therefore, although NCAA bylaws are not traditional “law,” they impact core legal principles” (Zachary 662). By showing how the NCAA bylaws lack basic equality it shows just how much power the NCAA has over college athletes. Roth also talks about how the NCAA has the power to administer a punishment, based off their own discretion. Not only does the NCAA restrict college athletes from attempting to do specific things and activities that normal students can engage in, but they are also able to punish athletes for breaking these restrictions. Roth also brings up an interesting case of a high-profile basketball player who played overseas in Europe, Enes Kanter. While in high school Kanter was offered a salary of $2 million to play for 2 years in Europe, however he chose to play in the NCAA where he was only rewarded a scholarship for the one year that he attended Kansas. Through Kanter’s choice to play in the NCAA it shows how college athletes need to play in the United States to advance into the professional level. In conclusion, the NCAA has exceptional control and power over college athletes and they have absolutely no organization to challenge their power.

After examining the article “Point/Counterpoint: Paying College Athletes” by Andrew Johnson, the article mainly focuses on the main counterpoints and problems that would occur as a result if college athletes were to be paid a minimum salary. One of the main points that Johnson uses as a central part of his argument is that college athletes are already being paid by colleges in the form of a scholarship to the school they are attending. However, after looking at research provided by Roth’s article it stated that the average scholarship only costs the school $25,000 per player. This might seem like a respectable amount of payment to athletes, however the same study also reveals that the average college player is worth around $83,000 to the same schools. 

Moreover, schools are unable to manipulate scholarships by cancelling them at any time whether it be for an injury, lack of performance, or just a bad attitude. Since the schools can pull scholarships at any time it allows for them to have complete power over college athletes. In the article “Feature: Should College Athletes be Paid” by Josslyn Howard she mentions another key flaw in scholarships, technically schools are required to cover a player’s injury, if the school decides to pull that player’s scholarship they no longer are required to pay for the injury expenses. This can leave the player with thousands of dollars’ worth of hospital bills, as well as potentially forcing them to drop out of school. Finally, Howard brings up another flaw in using a scholarship as a form of payment: the potential for walk on athletes. Currently, students can potentially “walk on” to teams in hope that they can become a college athlete. Despite many of these students never actually playing in a game they still are a major part of practices yet they receive no payment for the massive number of hours they are contributing. Colleges are essentially required to only pay the main players that make up a college team with scholarships, and the “walk on” students practice for free.

Another major component of Johnson’s article is that it would be very hard to implement a fair payment system that could allow for college athletes to be paid without completely devastating the school that is paying them. This is one of the main concerns that is brought up often when discussing the controversy of paying college athletes. However, after examining “In Should College Athletes be Paid” by Tiffany Patterson she highlights the main areas where colleges are wasting money that could go towards student athletes. She goes on to write “head coaches such as Nick Saban, of the Alabama football team, are being paid as much as $6.9 million” (Patterson 17). Patterson argues that reducing these salaries is crucial since it will allow for colleges to have more money to pay athletes. Moreover, Nocera writes that reducing roster sizes to that of professional teams will not only make the sports more competitive but it will save additional capital that can be used to pay players. Finally, after initializing a salary cap and minimum salary, colleges will have more than enough money to pay players since they are saving money on areas that they are currently wasting funds. 

Another major aspect of Johnson’s article focuses on the NCAA and how they are designated as a nonprofit organization. Johnson argues that since the NCAA serves as a governing body for student athletics it would be impossible to make them pay student athletes. Although this is a strong point it also has a few major flaws that weaken the argument. First, the head of the NCAA is currently making $1.8 million dollars which is exceedingly higher than almost every other nonprofit in the entire United States. The high salaries of employees in the NCAA show that they are currently thriving and are going as far as to pay employees ridiculous salaries. Moreover, the NCAA currently oversees administering and enforcing student athletes, however they also generate almost $1 billion dollars annually, with college sports generating about $12 billion dollars annually. In the article “Pay for Play” by George Dohrmann he argues that due to the massive amount of money that is being generated because of college athletes the best course of action to pay these athletes would be through a rewards program. 

The reward system would not technically violate the NCAA nonprofit role and it would be centered around positive aspects such as GPA, charity contributions, and leadership roles. By allowing the NCAA to contribute in this way towards the player salaries it would increase student athlete participation in clubs, charities, as well as offering an incentive for better academics. Dohrmann goes on to explain that by slightly reducing NCAA employee salaries as well as using a small portion of the generated revenue, it will be sufficient to pay players. In addition, these incentives will allow for student athletes to have a more enjoyable college experience, as well as reducing punishments that the NCAA would have had to administer. Dohrmann goes on to say “the incentive system would allow for college athletes to engage more actively in their studies” (Dohrmann 22). By increasing student athlete interest in studies it allows for students who get scholarships revoked to have a backup plan, as well as potentially reducing crime rates among student athletes. In conclusion, by implementing a reward based system it would effectively allow for the NCAA to reward college athletes, while at the same time allowing for them to remain a nonprofit.

In addition to Johnson’s complaint about the NCAA being unable to pay college athletes, he also argued that it would not be fair if only football and basketball were paid. I looked at the article “A Solution for the Pay for Play Dilemma of College Athletes” by Roger Groves he focuses on a solution that would allow for colleges to develop a relatively fair system based off each sports popularity. Groves writes about the popularity of each sport and he states that “the most efficient way to pay players is based on how much they are worth to their school” (Groves 11). Groves concedes that even though it might not be fair to pay athletes different amounts by their sport it would be unreasonable to pay everyone similar amounts. However, the athletes from the less popular sports would still be able to receive rewards from the NCAA incentive so they would still be able to generate a salary.

Finally, one of the last main parts of Johnson’s article is that a scholarship over the course of 4 years can be worth as much as $100,000 and the college athletes who complete college are completely debt free. However, this is not entirely true, after viewing the article “Why Colleges Should Pay College Athletes” by Tyler Hartnett, Hartnett offered an insight into what the average student athlete is spending money on during their college experience. Hartnett talks about how being an athlete is a full-time job, when discussing an athletes’ routine, he says “On a typical day, a player will wake up before classes, get a lift or conditioning session in, go to class until 3 or 4 p.m., go to practice, go to mandatory study hall, and then finish homework or study for a test” (Hartnett 6). By showing readers the schedule that a student athlete goes through it allows for readers to understand how being a student athlete is definitely a full time job.

In conclusion, currently the NCAA and colleges are unfairly taking advantage of student athletes whether it is through unfair restrictions being placed on college athletes or how the colleges can manipulate the scholarship system. The college sport industry generates on almost $12 billion dollars annually, along with the NCAA generating $1 billion annually, yet the athletes that are responsible for generating this revenue are unable to receive any of it. The only form of compensation that the athletes receive is in the form of a $25,000 scholarship. However, in the current dynamic the NCAA and colleges have absolute power over the students that are responsible for generating the huge collegiate sport industry. After implementing a payment system for student athletes that utilizes a salary cap, an incentive system, as well as a free market system it would effectively work as a fair and reasonable method for paying student athletes. The payment method would also help resolve the unequal dynamic that the NCAA and college athletes currently have. Due to the massive industry that collegiate sports provide all throughout the United States as well as at the professional level it is ridiculous that the student athletes who are the backbone of this industry are unable to receive any of the revenue generated from it.
