In today’s society, athletics have become a staple to most households across the country. Millions of citizens play or tune in to watch athletic events on TV each and every week. In recent years the NCAA, or the National Collegiate Athletic Association, has faced strict scrutiny for not granting its athlete’s sufficient compensation for their talents. In 2015, the “nonprofit” organization generated close to a billion dollars worth of revenue. Athletes have begun to protest and unionize in efforts to be granted more than just scholarship aid while attending these institutions of higher learning. This movement has been nicknamed the Pay for Play and it has been broiled in controversy and speculation over the last few years. Although in recent years, many people have begun to support the movement, many supporters haven’t truly analyzed the impact and feasibility of realistically enacting a salary system. Paying amateur college athletes is a shortsighted idea because it promotes academic decline, financially it is not as beneficial as a scholarship and laws such as Title nine would make it nearly impossible to implement. 

In 1973, the NCAA modified its scholarship system and began granting aid to 3 different divisions (I, II and III) of college athletics. These scholarships help student athletes cover tuition and other university expenses. By accepting these scholarships, athletes agreed to maintain certain grade point averages and regularly attend classes. “A college education is by far the most rewarding outcome of being a student athlete” (Thelin). A small amount of collegiate athletes make it professionally in their particular sport and because of this many athletes learn to value their education. Earning an athletic scholarship promotes academic success inside the classroom and allows the student to grow in areas they might not otherwise.  “According to the most recent Graduation Success Rate data, 82 percent of Division One freshman scholarship student-athletes who entered college in 2004 earned a degree” (Jcoram).  The statistic shows the success of student athletes is improving. It is clear that the scholarship reforms implemented have led to strong academic success among student-athletes. Such a small amount of collegiate athletes make it professionally, that over time they learn to embrace the education aspect and strive for greatness inside the classroom. Success in the classroom is due largely in part by athletic programs making sure their athletes maintain a position on the team without failing out. If a student athlete were to gain a salary, they wouldn't be student athletes anymore they would be employees living at the University. These athletes wouldn't be held to the standards of attending classes or maintaining certain GPAs; the athlete’s main priority would be succeeding on the field. Many athletes would avoid attending classrooms and focus solely on athletics. Receiving a scholarship is monetary aid that pushes athletes to make it professionally or to complete their education and gain employment upon graduation. Without a degree, job opportunities are incredibly scarce and are financially difficult to support others.

In today’s society, the gap between salaries based on successful completion of a college degree is at an all time high. A college degree has become necessary in order to support oneself financially. In a study conducted by US News in 2011, households of 25 to 32 year olds who have only obtained a high school degree have an average net worth of $3,137. While on the other hand those who have obtained a bachelor or associate degree have a household worth of $26,058. This shows the impact a degree has on one’s financial worth. Academic success is necessary among student athletes in the case that they don’t make it professionally. Obtaining a degree is vital in today’s society, without a degree the average person struggles to maintain a median household income. Implementing a salary system will lead athletes away from the classroom, as they will have a misguided belief that they are sufficiently prepared for life.  When in reality if they don’t make it professionally, they will have very little. College is only one of many routes that can be taken on the road to professional sports. 

Society tends to forget that student athletes aren’t forced to accept scholarship offers from universities. There are other routes to gain recognition and make it professionally. The athlete acknowledges by signing the scholarship contract that they are bound to play at the particular university and in return receive tuition, room, board and books. Although this is the case, some argue receiving a salary instead of a scholarship would be better financially for the athletes. “There is a perception among players that they are becoming employees without adequate compensation” (Guarino), when that is truly far from the case. John Thelin, an Educational Policy Professor at the University of Kentucky, examined if receiving a salary would be more valuable than an academic grant. He outlined whether or not a $100,000 yearly salary would outweigh free tuition and the results were clear. Although on paper a $100,000 salary sounds incredibly sufficient for any student in college, taxes alone decrease that number significantly. "A for athletic scholarship (A “grant-in-aid”) at an NCAA Division I university is worth about $65,000 a year if you enroll at an out of state or private institution. In other words, this means student-athletes are receiving an average of $65,000 worth of benefits, while attending these institutions of higher learning. Receiving a scholarship is a tax-exempt salary that covers an athlete’s education, living and eating. On the other hand receiving a $100,000 salary is not tax-exempt. These athletes would be titled as university employees and be subject to federal, state and many other taxes including Social Security. What began as $100,000 would quickly diminish to nearly $60,000 as a result of the excessive amount of federal and state taxes. Thelin’s exercise was based around Kentucky, a state with a fairly moderate tax rate. Players attending tax heavy states such as New York would be forced to pay even greater amounts. Collegiate athletes would be forced to manage their remaining income and it is likely that very few millennials who are just starting out in college are truly mature enough to handle that. The value of obtaining a college degree is at an all time high and with that the cost of obtaining a college degree is also at an all time high. A free education is more valuable today than ever, graduating from college without student debt is incredibly desirable among today’s society. The Pay for Play movement steers away from this and instead promotes making money in the short term and acting like professional athletes.

 The Pay for Play movement was sparked from college athletes who deemed they deserved benefits of those similar to professional players. Professional leagues such as the NFL and NBA have become the model for sports salaries, but very few ever make it to the stage. According to a study done by Georgia State University; “Approximately three percent of male and female high school basketball players go on to play college basketball, and only about one percent of those players turn pro” (“Dreaming of Becoming a College or Professional Athlete?”). For a movement to be sparked on the basis of less than 1% of the student athlete population is irrational. Among those who move on to various stages of professional sports, very few ever see the million dollar contracts. “Outside the NBA, players in the professional development league -- one step away from making an NBA squad -- make about $43,000 per year” (Thelin). The statistic shows the drastic cut off in salaries from the NBA and their developmental league. This league consists of top former collegiate players who are on the verge of making it to the next level. It is incredibly unreasonable to believe that players at the collegiate level (below the developmental league) should receive more valuable contracts. That is like saying a mid-level management position in a business, deserves a higher income than executive officials like the CEO. It doesn’t make sense for a movement to be motivated by a goal that such a small minority will realistically obtain. 

Many people believe that the NCAA and large universities across the country are tremendously profiting off the talents and skills of the student athletes, when in reality that isn't the case. According to the survey held by the Knight Commission, “78% of Americans believe collegiate athletics is profitable” (Sanderson 120) while in “2013 the NCAA reported only 20 of 126 football universities are in the surplus” (121). This statistic shows that only 15% of Division 1 FBS football programs were even profitable. Although many programs do generate immense amounts of revenue, there are also tons of expenses (Coaches, facilities, etc). It's hard to believe what is being asked of the universities. Most of the institutions aren’t generating profits off their athletic programs, adding hundreds of salaries would only force more of a deficit. 

Implementing a program to pay collegiate athletes would force many universities to be more burdened financially due to the extreme cost it would entail. A large amount of the money that funds colleges and their sports programs comes from tuition fees and alumni donors. Tuition fees and donor amounts would have to increase substantially for the schools to be able to cover the additional salaries. It is certainly true that large amounts of money are made off of college sports. A recent study by Business Insider found that “a college football player at the University of Texas is worth, on average, $578,000, which is more than fifteen times the amount the University of Texas actually spends on each football player at the school” (Vanderford 830). While this statistic is compelling, this is not a nationwide norm. If this were the case for every university, than a salary program would have a greater case throughout the nation and could be implemented smoothly.  That is only one side of the spectrum though. Players of smaller sports such as tennis or golf are often valued less than their scholarship is worth, but laws force universities to grant fixed amounts of aid. 

The biggest factor road blocking granting collegiate athletes with salaries is Title IX. This law states, “No person in the United States, shall on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to the discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”(Public Law 92-318). Since it was implemented in 1972, Title IX has forced universities to offer gender equality among athletic scholarships and prohibit sex discrimination in education and sports. If a salary system where to be implemented, universities would legally have to grant both men and women equal amounts. While this is completely ideal and ethical, it is near impossible implement. At many universities men's football and basketball are the only sports that generate any profit. Mary Gambardella, an attorney who has worked on many college athlete cases, acknowledges this point. “If the football player was to be considered an employee -- because participate in sports was considered ‘work’ – then the woman on the tennis team would be an employee as well. You’d be compelling schools to pay all athletes, which would bankrupt all of them” (Vanderford 835).  This quote identifies the complexity around paying college athletes who are on the scholarship. Although it appears Universities and the NCAA profit tremendously off the talents of college athletes, in reality these institutions wouldn’t be able to afford to pay all of the athletes. According to Title IX, it would be unlawful to only pay profitable sports such as basketball and football. Because of this, some Universities would be forced to pay athletes on over 20 varsity athletic teams. In other words, schools would have hundreds upon hundreds of athletes, both male and female, to equally finance. 

Some argue that Title IX would need to be reformed if a Pay for Play system were to be implemented. Technically if athletes began receiving benefits beyond a scholarship they could be considered university employees and that wouldn’t comply fully with Title IX. The law is directed towards student athletes and in the case they became employees, the legality of the text is up in the air. With that being said, the university would still be required to follow three requirements for both sexes; equal treatment of the athletes, equal participation and financial assistance. These requirements would not be met unless they continued to maintain equal standards for both men and women, meaning equal compensation would have to be granted. It is clear that if they began paying high profile male athletes, schools would also have to grant compensation to female athletes as well. Executing a nationwide salary system to fit the needs of Title IX would cause numerous issues. Beyond the fact that women would need equal compensation, it would be nearly impossible to properly implement a plan across the country that would work with schools of different sizes. Small private schools differ immensely from large state schools. Fewer programs are offered at private schools, which creates complexity to appropriately meet the needs of Title IX without causing the institution of higher learning from going bankrupt. 

Paying amateur college athletes is a shortsighted idea because it promotes academic decline, financially it is not as beneficial as a scholarship and laws such as Title IX would make for a near impossible transition. Granting a stipend instead of a scholarship would push student athletes away from the classroom and leave a priority on the field. With so few players making it professionally, this would have a negative impact not only on the school, but also on the player’s future after their sports career. It would be illogical to change the system when the consequences would immensely outweigh the positives. Paying college athletes would be great and deserving of the athletes for their hard work and dedication, but the process would force bankruptcy across universities nationwide. It is hard to argue for something when laws enacted by the United States Congress and House of Representatives make it next to impossible to be passed. Each and every collegiate athlete is incredibly valuable to his or her school, but not valuable enough to maintain equal and well constructed stipends among all. The Pay for Play movement has gained a ton of momentum in the past few years and it is because society has lost sight in the value of a college degree. Advances towards implementing a salary system have begun and student athletes need to recognize the short term and long term harm it will have on him or her financially. Academic decline will result in serious harm towards these athletes in their lives after college. They will be losing money both short-term and long-term by receiving a taxed salary and will lose sight on their degree. A college athlete being paid is beyond unrealistic because so few sports on the collegiate level are even profitable. A university would be expected to equally compensate the fifth string tennis player the same amount as the star football or basketball player. It is hard to argue the sense behind promoting an idea so far fetched, yet true as this. The Pay for Play movement is fueled by emotion and ethics, but is founded on the basis of impractical and unfeasible ideals.
