Every year the NCAA reels in around 900 million dollars in revenue from collegiate athletic programs. More specifically though, an average sized D1 university brings in about 70 million dollars a year in revenue from sports. That being said, collegiate football and basketball athletes at a division one level should be monetarily compensated for the millions of dollars their performances are bringing into the university. Although scholarships and educational opportunities are often noted as the offerings, this is simply just not enough given the restrictions placed on the athletes, which require to play years of college before entering the professional leagues. As well as the risk they take of getting injured for their seasons, years or maybe even taking them out of the game for their careers, dedication and time they put in and their potential monetary value at a professional level or the income they could be making off of their sport. 

For years the question has dazzled gamblers, athletes and bystanders alike, should we pay our college athletes? And likewise for many years, prosperous college programs have been laying the same claim that the education the athletes are receiving will be more than enough long run compensation for their time spent as an athlete at the university. This however is simply not true; one look we can take on this is supported by Lee Goldman a writer for the Notre Dame Law review. In Goldman’s article he challenges that if colleges are claiming that the education is the payment, then the NCAA and individual schools should be doing a much bigger part in emphasizing the student aspect of being a student athlete (Goldman 5).  As well as the fact that professors at Brown University personally stated that the athletes at the school were not primarily engaged in learning  (Edelman 3).  As the world of college sports becomes more and more profitable, it is tough to find a university that is truly dedicating their time to enriching the athlete’s minds, instead of trying to use the athletes for media attention or drawing attention to their own program. This claim holds strong validity because as a bystander we can clearly see how the NCAA and Universities alike are using their star athletes like celebrities and exploiting them to draw in as much money as possible. This can be seen in many common cases such as Jamies Winston’s case of crab leg theft, or Johnny Football simply being turned down the chance to profit off of his #1 nationally sold football jersey (Jackson 6). If the NCAA wants to continue to outlaw the pay of college athletes with the excuse of being paid a college education, then they should solidify the regulations on the university more than on the players alone, to motivate and require athletes to earn their respected degrees. This focus on education would be invaluable to the majority of role players in college sports because there is such a slim chance they will go pro, and the underwhelming length of the average professional sports career in the United States.   However, I still believe it would be more effective to give the education, with some sort of salary attached as well just as a safety net to keep athletes who might not make it big the first or second try, on their feet and rady to take another shot at a career.

One main reason that we should be paying college athletes is the fact that they are more or less, employees of the University. In an article written by Kenneth Cooper, we see a break down of what the requirements are that must be met in order for a person to be considered an employee under federal labor laws, and if they are legally entitled to form unions and negotiate wages (Edelman 3).  In todays society this common law has 3 tests, first being if someone else has the right to control another person’s activities, secondly is whether that person is compensated or not and lastly whether the person is economically depending on that compensation (Cooper 2).  In this case we find that most student athletes meet all 3 of these. Coaches have a majority control over the player’s actions, which meets the first test. For the second we can apply the fact that we know a high percentage of athletes playing this level of college come from an underprivileged background, and lastly we know that these athletes do depend on their compensation for food, shelter, and more, while they are away at their respected universities. With the knowledge of these 3 things we can reasonably conclude that the athletes are employees of their institutions, and they do deserve pay for their devotion, and submissiveness to the increasingly demanding job that it is to be a college athlete.

Probably the most powerful point in this whole debate on paying college athletes is the fact that we should pay these athletes due to their risk of severe injury. As of now there is NCAA requirements in place requiring football players to play 3 years removed from high school and basketball players one year removed from high school before they are eligible for the pros, where the money is. One issue with this is that most players who would be eligible to go pro based off of skill, are usually 100% dedicated to the game, meaning they have all of their eggs in one basket, which is their sport. In collegiate sports the body endures extreme physical demands year after year continuing into the pros, and throughout any of this process, one body part could fail and cause your career to end abruptly. This is far too often the case, and in instances where this does happen, the athlete is often left high and dry, now uneducated and unable to continue the career they dedicated their lives too. This is why the NCAA should offer some monetary compensation so that athletes who lose their ability to play for scholarships would have some money to lay framework for a career or be able to pay to finish school.  However, like ESPN senior analyst Skip Bayless believes, if the NCAA does not want to compensate this risk, then in turn they should give the athletes freedom to play at a higher level for money if they are offered the opportunity to (First Take 4). Another way the NCAA could amend this policy is by enabling some sort of insurance policy to accompany the scholarship for scholarship players. For example if a D1 athlete projected to go in the lottery pick for the NFL draft is projected at a worth of 400,000 dollars, then undergoes a double ACL tear in a college game he was required to play, then the NCAA or university should have an acting insurance policy to pay him some portion, 1/3 or ¼ of his net worth to the sport in the league he could be playing in. This policy could create a fair ground between athlete and NCAA alike, which is hard to come by. Overall the requirements for playing for a pro ready Division One athlete are unjust and essentially a lose, lose for the athlete. If they play the required games they take the risk of injury and missing the draft, and if they choose not to play then they will lose their spot on the team, or could see a scary decline in the money they could be making from being a lottery pick to the professional league. This has affected many athletes who some have moved on to go pro like Todd Gurley who luckily overcame his injuries in his last season before eligibility and moved on to play for the St. Louis Rams, but some athletes are not as lucky. Legendary University of South Carolina running back Marcus Lattimore fell victim to a career ending leg injury just before he was predicted to be a top pick in the NFL draft, in his case he well deserved some sort of monetary compensation for what he brought to the university and program itself, and luckily this was recognized and he was given a job in the athletic Dept. at the University. These are just a couple of recent well known instances where the NCAA’s policies have had semi unfair life changing affects on an athlete who could have been having their shot at fame and fortune in the pros. 

A common speculation among people who believe that pay in college in college athletics is unreasonable, is the belief that it would be all to hard to to fund this payment to the athletes anyways (Walch 10). This is simply just not true, between the millions in revenue generated by the Universities, the Billions that the NCAA makes for media coverage, and the millions in salary that the coaches receive, it would be extremely easy to trickle down some of that revenue into a small base pay, or insurance pay for college athletes.  In a piece Joe Nocera wrote for the New York times he offers a viable and somewhat simple way to pay college athletes that play for teams in one of the power five conferences consisting of the ACC, Big 10, Pac-12, Big east and the SEC (Nocera 7).  First it is proposed that each team would have a base salary cap like in the professional leagues, for example a D1 basketball team would have a 650,000 dollar salary cap. Then within the team each player would be guaranteed 25,000 dollars, which takes up approximately half of the salary cap leaving the other half to compensate stars and use as a recruiting tool (Nocera 7). This idea may seem outlandish, but as programs and universities spend millions of dollars on lavish athletic facilities and luxurious amenities to sweeten the pot for athletes choosing their dream school, is regulated real money really that far fetched as a recruiting tool? Not only would this help programs be able to drive a harder bargain for athletes that fit their programs, but it would also decrease the chance of stars playing for one year and getting out as soon as possible to make money. Nocera rounds up this plan by saying the NCAA would have to partner with other associations to smooth out all of the legalities of paying the athletes with taxing laws, handling of royalties and salary assignments and limitations (Nocera 7). Another benefit of this alternative payment plan is that it would help eradicate the under the table, inappropriate, and illegal offering of things to players to help lean them one way or another to whatever program that is striving to recruit them. As mentioned before, some college atheletes may be engulfed in the lifestyle that comes along with being a D1 athlete and lose sight of their education’s with dreams of big bucks in the pro’s, only to be left empty handed after college fighting to find a way to financially support finishing their degrees. With this salary cap system universities can achieve almost a safety net for this all too common ending for college athletes. While the athlete is in the program receiving the salary, they will already have most things paid for between normal college room and board and inclusively paid for traveling with the team. Which leaves a large portion of the money they earned to fund furthering their own educations or careers outside sports after they are done playing for their respected schools. In many ways it seems apparent that if set up and executed correctly, this salary cap system could be beneficial to everyone involved and help provide some relief for what is hopefully moral guilt of universities leaving players uneducated and out of jobs as soon as they are not useful to their athletic institutions anymore. An alternative to this plan of paying athletes is another viable option, which is having sponsor’s or boosters pay the University as a whole, instead of paying an individual player. This would help spread the wealth to the entire university and possibly have far reaching benefits as impactful as even possibly lowering tuition for the rest of the students, or other athletes.

Aside from obvious benefits for players, being paid to play could poise many  less obvious, outside the pocket of the athletes benefits for the players and their Universities. For starters one huge complaint by people after their schooling is over is lack of money management skills. Having this financial experience with money before real world exposure could exponentially benefit the athletes who are involved, experience level with managing their finances. Another being that a high percentage of college athletes are from low-income families, in many cases this small salary could potentially have a large impact on not only the athletes but their families back at home too (Brill 1).  Lastly another indirect benefit of paying college athletes is the fact that a small amount of incentive, which in this case is the salary, could drive competition through the roof in athletics. Giving more athletes on the team relief from the finiancial burdens of college, and letting them focus more on improving themselves in spirit, mind and body (Edelman 3). In an environment where media, coaches, and universities are all making soaring profits off of performance of their athletes, is it right that they should be the only ones not receiving pay for it? Are Universities responsible for providing these dedicated athletes the compensation they deserve?

Overall, college athletes deserve to be compensated beyond being educated for their performance, dedication, and assets they personally bring to their schools. Not only will paying our athletes change the way our nations college athletes have been systematically exploited by the NCAA, but it will give back to athletes who have given their all to the game and school they love, only to be left empty handed after they graduate. In a billion dollar industry it should, could, and would be beneficial, possible, and more fair to everyone involved to pay the players who are putting in blood sweat and tears to bring glory to their own names, and the schools they love. 

 