With March Madness right around the corner, the NCAA will be extremely excited because these three weeks of college basketball are projected to bring in around 900 million dollars in revenue this year. Currently, none of the college athletes will see any of that money because the NCAA does not allow compensation for their athletes other than scholarships. Scholarships include free tuition, room and board, meals, travel, and textbooks. Many fans and players are still unsatisfied and are demanding some form of financial compensation since their talents are the one producing the revenue. In the past decade, specifically the college football and college basketball market, have become extremely profitable assets for the NCAA. It is time to start looking in depth at the topic every university board member, college athlete, coach, or general sports fan has run across at some point, “Should college athletes be financially compensated?”. On an emotional appeal, the paying of collegiate athletes who are generating millions of dollars in revenue makes sense, however, when analyzed further, it cannot logistically be implemented because it is not the purpose of college sports, would be virtually unaffordable, and completely redefines the term ‘student athlete’.

The reasoning for wanting college athletes to be financially compensated is logical. The players are producing the product; therefore, they should receive a portion of the revenue. Most people will agree with that reasoning. Why? Because that is American capitalism. The average person more than likely stops there and forms their opinion based off that logic. Like Michael Wilbon, an ESPN journalist and TV personality who used to believe college athletes should not get paid but after hearing of a multi-billion dollar television deal the NCAA made with CBS and Turner Mobile for coverage of the March Madness tournament, Wilbon fired off an article on ESPN stating  “So you know what caused me to do a 180 on the issue? That $11 billion deal -- OK, it's $10.8 billion to be exact -- between the NCAA and CBS/Turner Sports for March Madness between 2011 and 2024. We're talking $11 billion for three weekends of television per year” (Wilbon). It is easy to see where his confusion and rage come from. Why is the NCAA making so much money and not allowing the players to receive any of it? The important thing to understand is the players do, in their scholarships. With collegiate athletes, it is complex. It requires a further analysis and deeper understanding of what the NCAA stands for. The March Madness revenue makes up well over half of the total revenue for the NCAA’s annual percentages. But the revenue is not just being sat on, it is being reinvested back into the schools, facilities, team travel fees. The NCAA supports over 450,000 athletes with some form of financial grant each year (Should Student Athletes…). Their mission as an organization is to help athletes use their athletic talents as a platform to put them in a chance to get an education that will prepare them for the long run, way after their sports careers are over. If that mission changed, what would the domino effect would be? There are a few intriguing cases for why the NCAA should pay their students, but none are practical enough to drown out the dozens of reasons why the NCAA continues with their current system of using scholarships as a form of compensation.

For example, let us entertain the idea of replacing scholarships with salaries. On average, a full athletic scholarship to a Division 1 school is valued around $65,000 per year. This includes the $45,000 for tuition and an additional $20,000 for housing, meal plans, and books. If a new system was put in place, instead of offering a scholarship, a coach could offer a recruit a $100,000 salary as a substitute. Since the offer is a salary and not a scholarship it qualifies for income taxes. “So, a student-athlete paid a salary would owe $23,800 in federal income tax and $6,700 in state taxes, a total of $30,500. In cities that levy an employee payroll tax, the salaried student’s taxes go up about $2,400 per year. Income taxes then are $32,900. And, as an employee, the player would have to pay at least $2,000 in other taxes, such as Social Security, for a total of $34,900.” (Thelin). If the student uses the rest of his salary to pay the $65,000 in college fees that will leave the student athlete with a whopping $100 left. Why spend more money to recreate the same effect? 

That also assumes that the college athletes are being responsible with his/her money. Giving a teenager that much financial access and availability to resources could be a major liability for the universities as well as harmful to the athlete. ESPN released a 30 for 30 documentary back in 2012 titled, Broke. The documentary exposed the mismanaged finances of young athletes once they turn professional. It stated that 60% of former NBA players are broke within 5 years of retiring and that 78% of NFL players are under financial crisis or bankruptcy just 2 years past retirement (Broke). Dozens of athletes are interviewed to talk about their downfall of being multi-millionaire professional athletes, to unemployed, and penniless. From bad investments, to irresponsible lifestyles, the former athletes all admitted lack of responsibility, discipline, and their youth were to blame for their financial problems. This proves that when huge amounts of money are given to those with little life experience and education it is hard to expect them to be responsible.

For the same value as a scholarship, paying with salaries would cost each school an additional $35,000, per athlete as proven by John Thelin earlier. A fully funded program would have over 150 athletes on scholarship, meaning switching to a salary would be a multi-million expense for schools. Unfortunately, this raise in expense would force cuts elsewhere in the university. Budget cuts would come from all over the place like small clubs, or even small market sports that don't generate a lot of revenue for the school. Sadly those would have to get cut to pay the salaries of top priority athletes, like basketball or football. 

Keep in mind these superstar level salaries would be going to amateur athletes. Not only would these teenagers being making more money than the average working class American, but also would be making more than professional athletes of the same sport. Hypothetically if the average college basketball player received $100,000 per year, that would be over double of what the league average salary is for the NBA’s developmental league ($43,000) (Thelin). So theoretically, college athletes could be transitioning up in skill level but be financially taking huge steps down. This is the equivalent to getting a job promotion along with a pay decrease. Does not exactly add up does it? So why should the NCAA treat and pay their amateur athletes like they are better than the professionals? 

If players are compensated in a monetary form, they would have to legally become employees for their university. This means they would have contracts, player unions fighting for more player rights, and lockouts could occur if an athlete and school are in disagreement. Also once an athlete becomes an “employee” for their respective university that immediately prioritizes athletics over academics. The employees’ course load becomes a distraction to the services he or she is trying to provide to their school. This behavior should only belong at the professional level. It will only raise more conflict, tension, and controversy. It would instill a message of self-centeredness or egotism in athletes. Athletes would constantly be seeking to get the best deal possible for themselves. Collegiate sports are about developing and maturing young men and women through teamwork, discipline, and companionship.  Giving teenagers money would send a whole new wave of professionalism to the market and ultimately change the entire purpose of college sports. 

College sports should be considered a privilege. Only 7% of high school athletes play in college and only 2% play in Division 1 (Anderson). The original intent of the NCAA granting athletic scholarships was to give athletically talented high schoolers an opportunity to get a proper education that they likely would not have received, while also training their skills and competing. There has been a dramatic shift in priorities over the past decade where student athletes become not just slightly, but entirely centered around winning games rather than winning in the classroom. According to the NCAA’s official website, since 2004, just 82% of their athletes have graduated with a degree (NCAA). While this percentage is increasing, there is still a significant amount of room for improvement in the policies. Disciplinary action needs to take place to ensure that it does. 

Too many collegiate athletes are convinced they are going to make it to the professional level, therefore they do not take their academics seriously. Out of 5,000 athletes in college basketball, only 60-90 athletes will make it to the NBA. The 98% of D1 players whose careers will end after college need to prepare themselves by graduating now and earning their degree. A proper education is the game changer that prepares these students for life after basketball. In 2014, a televised debate on MSNBC between NCAA President Mark Emmert and Secretary of Education Arne Houston talked about this recent change in dynamic. Arne Houston was a former basketball player at Harvard and said this topic was personal for him, 

“Many guys I played with, looked up to, went to universities. Made a lot of money for their schools. Never got their degree. Came back home with nothing to show for it and there was something fundamentally unfair about that. For me the real care is we have to change is the structure so graduation rates are the most important thing.” (Should Student Athletes…)

Houston warns about the dangers of not maintaining the importance of an education. He stressed that students to need the most of their time not just athletically but academically as well. By making sure student athletes can leave their schools with something “to show for it”. A degree. Ensuring that students do not go back home empty handed. If the NCAA really wants to show they care about the athletes long-term they need to focus their time on raising graduation rates. The way to spark this change is to restructure the money and bonuses for coaches and athletic directors so that their bonuses and incentives are not determined by athletic success but academic ones instead. Tom McMillian looked at a numerous amount of coaches’ and athletic directors’ contracts in terms of compensation and reported that the dollar amount ratio for wins to academic performance is 11:1 (Should Athletes). Coaches and Athletic directors are the leaders for the student athletes. If the coach’s bonuses are mostly determined by athletic performance, coaches will also prioritize and encourage their players to view competing over schoolwork. 

There would be no fair way to pay the athletes. First, some believe it should be an open market system where there are no rules or limitations on how much a player should make. This would cause mayhem and essentially would destroy recruiting. The big market programs with big booster groups would be able to make the highest offers and stock pile their teams with elite talent, while small schools would not be able to bring in nearly as much talent. Small market schools are already limited when it comes to recruiting and having an open market system would create a monopoly for the already elite schools. Only 23 of 228 current D1 schools are running their program in the black, which means those 23 schools would be the only ones capable of covering the costs of additional athletes. 

As highlighted throughout the essay, paying college athletes is the exact opposite of what collegiate levels sports are all about. March Madness is a frenzy filled, action packed three weeks of basketball every single year. A big part of the thrill is that the athletes are not paid professionals, just kids playing for school pride and love of the game. Even if the college players deserved to be paid, it would take the heart out of it. 

The friction of this topic does not come from the “Why” aspect but instead it comes from the “How”. Implementing a system that allows for financial compensation of college athletes would be nearly impossible. Who would be responsible for paying the athletes, the NCAA or each university? Universities cannot afford to pay their athletes, which means there would be cuts elsewhere in a school. The NCAA is a non-profit organization so it would be rather head-scratching to see them paying large dividends to irresponsible teenagers. Fans need to see that paying college athletes’ salaries would destroy the integrity of college athletics. The thrill of college sports comes from watching players who are not playing for money or because they are contractually obligated but purely for their love of the game. 

It is much easier to sit back and critique the NCAA’s rules and restrictions then to actually try to understand why they have been in place for so long. It is impossible to say what exactly college sports would like if the players could get paid until it was actually implemented.  However all fans owe it to themselves to genuinely sit and evaluate the differences of what it would look like if money got handed to the players. Every dynamic, recruiting strategy, and passion from players would be eternally different.  the NCAA has made it clear it is in no rush to make an altering decision on the matter  so the debate continues to rage on. In the mean time, the current college athletes should continue to work hard, and use that personal drive not only on the field, but off it as well. 