Every year the NCAA reels in around 900 million dollars in revenue from collegiate athletic programs. More specifically, an average sized D1 university brings in about 70 million dollars a year in revenue from sports. With 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 in to the Universities. Although scholarships and educational opportunities are often seen as the payback the players receive, this is simply not enough. Especially given the restrictions placed on collegiate athletes, which require them to play a certain number of years of college sports, before entering the professional leagues. The risk they take of getting injured for the season, years or maybe even taking them out of the game for their careers, dedication and time they put in to the sport, as well as their potential monetary value at a professional level, all showcase why these athletes should be receiving a salary. 

For years the question has dazzled gamblers, athletes and bystanders alike, should we pay our college athletes? Prosperous college programs have been making the 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 claim however, is simply not true.  Lee Goldman, a writer for the Notre Dame Law review, 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 educational aspect of being a student athlete (Goldman 5).  Professors at Brown University personally stated that athletes in their classes were not primarily engaged in learning and their focus was more on their sport (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 them for media attention or drawing attention to their own programs. This claim holds strong validity because as a bystander we can clearly see how the NCAA and Universities alike are using their star athletes as celebrities and exploiting them to draw in publicity and 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 that they are 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 extremely valuable to the majority of players in college sports because there is a slim chance they will go in to one of the professional leagues.  It would be more effective to ensure the players are getting the proper education, with some sort of salary attached as well, just as a safety net to keep athletes who might not make it big on their feet and ready to take another shot at another 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 today’s society this common law has 3 tests, first being if someone else has the right to control that person’s activities, second being whether that person is compensated or not and lastly, whether the person is economically dependent on that compensation (Cooper 2).  In this case, we find that most student athletes meet all three of these tests. Coaches have a large amount of control over the player’s actions, which meets the first test. For the second test, the players receive scholarships, clothing, food and other benefits and lastly, the fact that we know a high percentage of athletes playing this level of college sports come from an underprivileged background show that these athletes do depend on their compensation for food, shelter, clothing and more, while they are away at their respected Universities. With the knowledge of these three facts we can reasonably conclude that the athletes are technically considered employees of their institutions, and they do deserve pay for their devotion and submissiveness to the increasingly demanding job that is being a college athlete.

The most powerful point in this whole debate about paying college athletes is their risk of severe injury, which could cause them to be unable to play, forever. As of now, there are NCAA requirements in place requiring football players to play 3 years out of high school and basketball players one year out of high school before they are eligible for the professional league, where they will make money. One issue with this is most players who would be eligible to become professional 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 demand year after year, and throughout any of this process, one body part or muscle could fail and cause their career to end abruptly, no matter how cautious the player is. 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 majority of athletes cannot afford college without their scholarship from their sport.  Thus, the NCAA should offer some monetary compensation so that athletes who lose their ability to play for scholarships will 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 they should give the athletes freedom to play at a higher level for money if they are offered the opportunity to, instead of forcing them to play in college first (First Take 4). Another way the NCAA could amend this policy is by enabling some sort of insurance policy to accompany the scholarship for players receiving them. 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, but 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 of his net worth.  Giving the player 1/3 or 1/4 would be a fair policy, creating a fair ground between the athlete and NCAA, which is hard to come by. Overall, forcing a player who is ready to be in the professional league to have to play in college is 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 dramatic decline in the money they could be making from being a lottery pick to the professional league. This has affected many athletes, some have moved on to become professional, 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 many 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 deserved some sort of monetary compensation for what he brought to the university and the program itself.  Luckily, this was recognized and he was given a job in the athletic department at the University. These are just a couple of recent well known instances where the NCAA’s policies have had unfair life changing affects on an athlete who could have been having their shot at fame and fortune in the professional leagues. 

There are many people who argue that paying collegiate atheletes is unreasonable and believe it would be too hard to fund payments to the athletes (Walch 10). This is a false claim because between the millions in revenue generated by the Universities, the billions the NCAA makes for media coverage, and the massive salaries that 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.  Joe Nocera wrote a piece in the New York Times, offering a viable and simple way to pay college athletes that play for teams in 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 salary cap and within the team each player would be guaranteed $25,000, which takes up approximately half of the salary cap, leaving the other half to use as a recruiting tool (Nocera 7). This idea may seem extreme, but as programs and universities spend millions of dollars on lavish athletic facilities and luxurious amenities to persuade 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 athletes playing for one year and getting out as soon as possible to make money. Nocera rounds up this plan, 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, 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 athletes may be engulfed in the lifestyle that comes along with being a D1 athlete and lose sight of their education, with dreams of making money as a professional, 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, meal plans 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 of 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 sponsors 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 other benefits for the players and their Universities. One big 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 by experiencing how to manage their finances. Another benefit is 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).  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 financial burdens of college, and letting them focus more on improving themselves in spirit, mind and body (Edelman 3). In an industry where media, coaches, and universities are all making soaring profits off of the performance of their athletes, it is not right that they are the only ones not receiving a share of it. 

Overall, college athletes deserve to be monetarily compensated 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 would be beneficial and 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. 

 