The issue is not new but has simply regained its relevance in the past few decades due to the vastly changed landscape that is college athletics. The topic of compensating college athletes is important to society because it affects how the college system in the U.S. operates and how it values the students in its universities. With new arguments arising, the conversation around the idea of paying college athletes has changed. These new arguments enable the college athletic system to justify compensating the athletes that compete for them. College athletes can be paid for their efforts due to the revenue increase of college programs, the time constraints of a student athlete, and the inclination to stay and finish school.

In the past, the idea to pay college athletes was shot down because the strength of the argument against this was much stronger than the one that they could make for it. When this idea was initially around, the landscape of college athletics was much different than it is today. There was much less funding and interest in the game on a national level which contributed to the lacking strength of persuasion in this argument (CNN, 2014). Also, unless you were extremely talented and had no doubt about your ability to succeed at the next level, you would not be leaving college early because the cost of not getting your degree was much higher (CNN, 2014). Not to mention the benefits of turning pro were not as enticing as they are today, which meant that students were more likely to stay anyway. The reasons in the past were set under a different compilation of circumstances that do not apply to the game anymore or have simply been altered in their strength due to the emergence of new facets in college athletics. 

Initially, the idea of compensating college athletes beyond their current scholarships can be justified due to the drastic increase in revenue that the college athletic system currently brings in. This increase in funds comes from the emergence of televised contracts to air the games of certain college sports. “The three weeks of the NCAA Basketball Tournament, known as “March Madness,” generate over $770 million in TV rights deals alone.” (Brill, 2013). Also, the schools are getting the revenue from the ticket sales at games where thousands of people are in attendance. All of this money is going to sources other than the athletes who are making all of it possible. There are many justifications that are made for why college athletes do not receive benefits from this increased revenue such as the fact that they are receiving scholarships that pay for their college expenses. This system does not seem to recognize the necessary equity in the situation however. While the value of scholarships has increased due to the corresponding increase in college expenses, when compared with the rise in accrued revenue by the schools it is dwarfed (Finkel, 2013). This inequality in the system is shown by the recent multimillion dollar contracts of the staff in these “revenue” sports (Finkel, 2013). So the question then arises of whether it is unethical to pay these student athletes or if this is just an excuse to exploit them instead. The large increase in revenue due to the play of college athletes should have earned them the right to a share of this or some benefit rather than a complete exploitation of their talents in order for the coaches and universities to prosper (Sanderson, 2015). Since it is required in some professional sports that you play one or two years in college before being drafted, this system almost seems manipulative in nature due to this process. In an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education by Harry Edwards, he brings up an interesting proposal for increasing revenue even further to ease the burden compensating players might have on colleges. This idea is to use sponsorship by corporations to directly compensate the institutions. “Aggressively soliciting and expanding corporate sponsorship of collegiate athletics would allow colleges to be both right and honest, while enjoying a sustainable flow of revenue without overburdening the general fund.” (Edwards, 2011). By gaining the corporate sponsor deals, the college athletic institution would gain a large external source of revenue which it could use to distribute funds back to the athletes.

Additionally, the argument for compensating college athletes for their efforts and contributions can be justified due to the time that they put in to the sports. This consideration needs to be made since college athletes are required to spend copious amounts of time practicing, along with travel, games, and other necessary occasions (Brill, 2013). Adding this on to a college students packed schedule makes it nearly impossible to find enough time to have a job. “According to an NCAA survey conducted in 2011, Division I football players averaged 43 hours a week. Baseball came in second with 42.1 hours and men’s basketball came in third with 39.2. These are in-season numbers. This means that on top of class work and homework, athletes are working a full-time job.” (Marshall, 2016). Therefore, college athletes should be compensated with some additional benefits to the scholarships because their current involvement is harming their prospective opportunities. In an article by John Brill in the Shirley Popovich Center for Sports Journalism, he states “The athletes cannot get the same value out of the education because of the already intense time commitment to the sport that has given them the opportunity to be in school. The idea that a college education is payment would have to assume that a college degree always pays off in the long run.” Arguments against this position suggest that college athletes make the decision to utilize their time in such a fashion and therefore do not have a case for needing additional funds. This argument, however, does not take into account the fact that a majority of athletes who participate in college athletics end up having a career in another discipline and should be helped by the university for which they are representing in an employee type situation. “A recent ruling that Northwestern University football players are school employees and thus have the right to unionize, along with class-action lawsuits demanding more compensation and better treatment for college athletes, has amplified debate over whether they should be paid.” (Karaim, 2014). The forgone opportunity cost while they are defending the established nature of the university should be compensated in some form such as a stipend so that this system can tend to the wholesome worth of those that deserve it. 

Finally, the final reason that a compensation system for college athletes can be justified is that it will encourage them to stay and finish school. In the modern collage athletic system, a lot of college athletes leave early in order to turn professional. This phenomenon has labeled our generation the “one and done” era. This is a result of athletes either chasing a paycheck in the high profit professional sports landscape, or due to the necessity of providing for those who might depend on them in order to ease the burdens of life. In either situation, this has created an epidemic of college athletes who leave before they are ready and end up not making it at the next level. This leaves them without a finished degree and without the scholarship they once had that helped them pay for the expenses associated with a college education. “My plan has one other element. Although college eligibility would remain at the current four years, the scholarships themselves would give players eight years to complete a degree.” (Nocera, 2016). In this article by Joe Nocera, he proposes a possible system where there is a salary cap system in college athletics with reservations as to how long a player must stay to fulfill the contract. This plan also gave the college athletes eight years of scholarship eligibility, so if a college athlete leaves early and encounters some sort of setback, they will not be left out to dry. According to an article by Roger M. Groves in the Texas Review of Entertainment and Sports Law, the laws that are in place regarding this type of compensation do not rule out all possible scenarios for compensating college athletes for such a purpose, while allowing them to still maintain their ties to the educational institution so that no one has to suffer. This is an important point to make about the discussion because if we are truly trying to regard them as students first, the institutions should be willing to do what it takes in order to help them succeed. Also, trying to care for those who depend on you is not easy and sometimes athletes leave so that they can try and support their family in need of help. While being a college athlete is rewarding, it does not present the opportunity to keep a full time job in order to contribute to the income of their family. Compensating college athletes can alleviate this type of issue by providing enough for their families to get by while they finish school and are fully able to pursue the route that they want in life.

Over the years, there have been several opposing viewpoints on the subject that have been used to justify the system where college athletes are not paid beyond a scholarship. One of these arguments makes the claim that the point of college athletics is that they maintain their amateurism throughout the duration and then turn professional after they leave. They say that this is a way to keep the game fair and eliminate corrupt competition (Marshall, 2016). In other words, they are arguing that the games top players should be held at the same level as those who do not even participate. Now this is an admiral stance and can be thought of as reflective upon the general education system. However, while this idea may be correct in terms of education where everyone is entitled to an opportunity, college athletics is a privilege that must be obtained by your skill in accordance with others in your field. Therefore, it must be regarded as though it is a job because it has all the essential qualities of one. This means that while there is a striving towards equity in college athletics, there will never actually be any because the best will always rise towards the better institutions to seek the top coaches and teammates. Another argument that is generally made has to do with the money that would be dished out to the athletes and the logistics of actually implementing this proposed idea. They say that there would not actually be a solid source of money to draw from in order to provide a sustainable compensation for the college athletes. Also, that the distribution of these funds would face concerns over the competition in the college setting. In an article in Forbes Sports Money by Kristi Dosh, she states “The NCAA released data showing that only 14 programs are turning a profit without having to rely on institutional support (like student fees or a check cut directly from the university coffers).” What this does not take into account is the fact that those “coffers” are largely filled by the boosters which have a lot to do with the institutions sports programs. This is also not accurate due to the fact that if universities wanted to make the necessary funds available to accomplish this task, they would be able to. With the incredibly high amounts of money that schools bring in due to tuition and other fees, along with the boosted revenue from the college athletic system itself, there would be enough sustainable funds to accomplish the desired outcome. The distribution is another thing entirely due to the incapability for there to be a complete equity in the way it is carried out. However, this is not a dense enough reason as the top revenue schools reached that level by attracting the top players anyway. This is also just how academic dispersion is accomplished with the best going to the top schools in their field regardless. Therefore, these arguments made by the opposing viewpoint do hold some merit but do not justify a complete shutdown of the idea to compensate college athletes.

Conclusively, while the arguments against compensating college athletes remain, new arguments have formed from the changed world we now live in that could justify an innovated system that is able to compensate college athletes. These new arguments stem from a drastic increase in the popularity and profitability of the college game. With benefits going to everyone but those who are providing the show, there is no reason why college athletes should be exploited in a system that is supposed to value them above all else. There is also the time and effort that these student athletes put into their respective sports. Through the countless hours of obligated time that must be spent on their sport, along with the studies of their primary academic commitment, there is little time for them to hold a job or make enough money for external purposes. Therefore, compensating players for this opportunity cost is only fair in a system that seeks equity. With the current state of college athletics, many athletes are choosing to forgo their degrees and take their chances in the professional landscape even though they may not be ready. This leaves the students vulnerable when they get older and providing some sort of external compensation could stem this flow of athletes leaving early without their full education. Overall, compensating college athletes is now a justifiable and necessary step to be taken in order to protect and benefit their contribution to the system.
