In the world of amateur sports, college athletes are held to the highest regard to profit junkies such as the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and Division I universities, yet strict regulations bar college athletes from receiving any form of compensation. This poses the question: Should college athletes who generate copious amounts of revenue for Division I universities (football and basketball in particular) maintain a fixed salary? Many argue that since the average division I athlete commits forty-two (for football) or thirty-four (for basketball) hours of his time to a sport, that they should be subject to some sort of compensation (NCAA), but a college athlete attends school to receive an education, which would be diminished in value if college athletes were to receive a salary. The athletes would primarily focus on achieving athletic success rather than on academics. On top of that, they already receive a substantial amount of scholarship as an incentive to go to a certain college or university. The competitiveness of revenue-generating college sports is already high, and athlete salaries would only exponentially increase it. Even though a college athlete generates millions of dollars in revenue for a university and the NCAA, that does not mean an athlete is obliged morally/ethically to receive compensation. Students in certain business clubs at universities create business, marketing, or advertising plans for institutions that facilitate revenue gains and they are not compensated for it. Should they vouch for payment upon completion? It is the same concept for college athletes. These athletes are boosting their athletic “resumes” so they can accept a spot on a professional athletic team after their time in the amateur league that is college athletics. 

NCCA President, Mark Emmert, handles pressure from the public by expressing in a statement that “They’re [College athletes] not hired employees conducting games for entertainment. They’re not a random group of folks that just come together to play sports” (Emmert). Emmert entered college athletics just as the debate of whether or not college athletes should be paid. His comment on this issue remains firm as he takes heavy backlash from the public, mostly from the athletes and the their families. Emmert has given statements and held press conferences to dismiss all rumors of college athletes ever getting salaries. In a society where college athletes have fixed salaries, either the content required for scholarship will increase, making it harder for a college athlete and possibly a regular student to achieve a scholarship, or the price of tuition will increase to be able to pay the salaries. A college athlete will also prioritize any college that receives the highest profit, which would lead to higher salary for the athlete. The greed of money, especially for teenagers may often steer athletes that would be otherwise bound for greatness in the wrong direction. Even in a professional setting, the outrageous salaries given to star players can lead to awful financial decisions. Take football players Michael Vick and Terrell Owens for example, both made several million dollars playing in the NFL but lost it all just from their private lifestyles. Michael Vick owed 18 million dollars at one point while Terrell Owens incurred monthly child support payments of fifty thousand dollars while bankrupt. 

Academics should remain the number one priority for all college students, especially college athletes. The percent of athletes that transition into the professional league is 1.2% for basketball and 1.6% for football (NCAA). They need an education to fall back on since playing at a professional level is nearly unattainable. The rigorous schedule of an athlete already disrupts an athlete’s path to an education. The sport schedules are almost too demanding for students to succeed in their classes. Richard Sherman, a professional football player reminisces about his college days when he comments on his daily schedule “I’d love for a regular student to have a student athlete’s schedule during the season for just one semester and show me how you balance that” (Sherman). Universities acknowledge that athletes have trouble juggling classes with sports but instead of providing tutors and other resources for the students, most institutions let the athletes slack on their classes. University of North Carolina cut corners when they enrolled some of their women basketball players in “paper” classes. These classes held no structure, attendance, and had administrators enter grades without even teaching that specific class. The classes were disguised as African American studies and seemed normal when one would sign up for it, it was not until a student would enter the class when suspicions would arise. Most athletes would welcome these classes since they would ease their schedules, but two women basketball players for UNC reported the atrocity and eventually brought the university to court for it. Except for some outliers, most athletes find it less of a taboo to belittle their classes to attend to their athletic needs. Paying college athletes would only enhance the inferiority of academics. 

Universities with successful sports teams spend a fortune to keep the team afloat. Although universities, specifically division I, rake in millions of dollars of revenue from ticket sales, advertising, endorsements, etc. they rarely end the fiscal year with a profit. Out of the 346 division I universities, only twenty of them score a profit in 2013 (football netted a median profit of slightly more than three million dollars while basketball netted slightly over $340,000). Of those schools, the median loss was $11.6 million and of those schools that actually did make a profit, it was only a median $8.2 million. This proposes a financial problem for universities if they considered paying athletes. Players would receive very light salaries. With athlete salaries instilled, the schools would only lose more money. Universities would have to persuade the NCAA for funds but it seems that the last thing the NCAA plans to do is pay their athletes. The most feasible option involves salary caps for coaches. Salary caps state that coaches can only earn a certain amount per year. These caps would not remain the same across every university, the size and financial situation of the university would determine the salary cap, whether it would allow the coach to earn more money or much less. Universities and the NCAA shy away from the proposition of coach salary caps in fear of outbreak of anger from the coaches. They fear that coaches go on strike or simply quit if this plan was introduced.

On the opposing side, athletes argue that coaches are paid a small fortune while they are worth half the value of any starting player on the team. Advocates for the student salaries would describe college athletes as “exploited” or “taken advantage of”. Legally, college athletes are not allowed to accept salaries because they are amateurs. Under the Sherman antitrust act, legal amateurs refrain from receiving any compensation from their institution. There have been many circumstances where advocates for student athlete compensation have partitioned for a change in the NCAA rulebook to allow salaries for athletes but have been turned down by the federal government since the Sherman Antitrust act requires the government to intervene when attempts have been made to pay athletes. One case in 2015 involved a plan to give athletes a salary of at least five thousand dollars per year on top of allowing them to receive compensation for use of athlete’s names, photos, and other media portrayals (Berkowitz). The case was upheld by the 9th U.S. circuit court of appeals, the panel stated, “The NCAA is not above the antitrust laws, and courts cannot and must not shy away from requiring the NCAA to play by the Sherman Act’s rules” (Berkowitz). Another case, David R. McCormack et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association became an appeal by Southern Methodist University students, alumni, and cheerleaders after they supposedly violated the Sherman Antitrust law and other laws pertaining to the avoidance of trusts (U.S. District Court). According to the NCAA, SMU gave student athletes more than just scholarship money, “Exceeding restrictions on compensation for student athletes” (U.S. District Court). As a result, the NCAA suspended the football team for the 1987 season. Players, cheerleaders, and even some alumni thought the ruling was without due process of law so they filed for appeal, demanding 

“injunctive relief; for the injuries suffered by the football players, treble money damages; for the price-fixing violations, $20 million "in the name of the University and all graduates and students thereof," to be trebled after judgment; for the group boycott, $50 million trebled to $150 million; and for the civil rights violations, an additional $20 million payable to SMU” (U.S. District Court). 

The court found no proof of inequality, therefore dismissed the case. These examples show how it is impossible for student athletes to have legal salaries.

The public views college athletes as the elite class on campus. Many people claim that athletes are always treated with the upmost respect around campus and that their lives are made easy to keep them happy so they will stay on the athletic team. Contrary to popular belief, athletes actually have very demanding schedules. The athletes that posses the ability to play at a college level, draw strong demands from their coaches, quite possibly their parents too; and, if they are able to play at a prestigious university, their teachers and academic counselors may also hold them with just as much as regard as a regular student. On top of that, an athlete may have to find a part time job to support his or herself or his/her family. As one can see, Athletes are some of the busiest students on campus. An athlete might have little incentive (other than someday playing in a professional league) and lack of ambition unless athletes are given salaries to boost morale. Also, Associated with these demanding schedules, coaches often put too much pressure on the athletes, sometimes to the point of injuring the athletes or causing extreme mental stress. This may also dampen an athlete’s drive even more; athletes may start to have thoughts of doubt about playing or thoughts of whether it is even worth playing with this extreme physical and mental pressure. Video footage and reports from students and former faculty reveal just how abusive coaches can be. Rutgers basketball coach, Mike Rice was swiftly terminated after displaying abusive behavior during practices. Video footage reveals Rice throwing balls at players at point blank range, hitting them in the face and other sensitive parts of the body. He also screamed obscenities and homophobic slurs at the athletes constantly, affecting the students performance during games. Other coaches push boundaries by forcing athletes to play on extreme injuries. Basketball coach Tim Beckman manipulated one of his players, Simon Cvijanovic, into participating with knee and shoulder injuries. When Cvijanovic refused to play, Beckman humiliated Cvijanovic by forcing him to sit and watch practice while wearing a rival opponent’s jersey. Utah swimming coach, Greg Winslow, nearly killed his swimmers when he forced them to swim with PVC pipes strapped to their backs and mesh bags over their faces. At this point the abuse turns to torture as some of the swimmers blacked out and began convulsing, eventually needing medical attention (Wolff). Advocates for compensation of student athletes may argue that these added demands from an athlete’s sport give reason for the NCAA to reconsider not paying athletes.

The topic of whether or not college athletes should be compensated for their name, image, performance statistics, etc… has proven to be an expensive topic in the world of college athletics. For some student athletes, their media portrayal generates revenue for the NCAA even after the athletes have graduated or left college athletics. This occurs often when college athletes have endorsements from sports companies or feature in NCAA’s college football/basketball video games. These NCAA literally take all the features of the college athletes basically without their permission and put them in a video game that generates mass revenue for the institution. Ed O’Bannon, former UCLA basketball player (’90-’95), had to act after he found out that the NCAA still made money off his appearance in one of the NCAA basketball video games. Ed O’Bannon was shocked that the NCAA collected one hundred percent of the revenue generated from the game while he received nothing. O’Bannon’s influence to act came from his colleague’s son after the young boy could even acknowledge how outrageous it was for him not to get paid for his authenticity in the video game. O’Bannon filed a lawsuit against the NCAA that challenged the institution’s use of college athletes in the media and a separate appeal to find a payment plan for college athletes (which was quickly rejected). O’Bannon later won the lawsuit in 2014 based on the ruling that “The NCAA’s use of names, images, and likenesses of college athletes without compensation violated antitrust law” (Brekken). O’Bannon was rewarded with a sixty million dollar bailout and influenced the ruling to give college athletes compensation of up to five thousand dollars to put into a trust fund that they can access after leaving college sports (The ruling was later overturned by a higher section nine circuit court). The court case left such an impression on the NCAA that they decided to stop producing video games all together. The NCAA appealed the ruling but was swiftly rejected. This court case may pave a path for college athletes and how they may be entitled to compensation: through media endorsements.

After considering the legality and feasibility of compensation of college athletes, a clear solution has become apparent. To assess the feasibility of paying college athletes, it is not rational since their amateur lives simply cannot handle the salary while trying to better themselves through an education. Scholarship and tuition prices would also be negatively impacted. Also, few schools have money in their budget to even possibly determine fixed salaries for college athletes. From a legal standpoint, college athletes have lost their privileges to the NCAA by signing contracts that they are considered amateurs, they cannot legally accept salaries or any financial benefit of any kind. But their commitment to their sport should not go unnoticed. As of right now, college athletes receive zero percent of revenue generated by their own publications in the media, whether that involves endorsements, appearances in commercials, or use of their names, images, or statistics in video games. To settle for a middle ground with the question of whether or not college athletes should be paid or not, college athletes must not have base salaries, but they should be rewarded for their portrayal in the media. College athletes should receive upwards of fifty percent of whatever revenue is generated from college athletes in the media. So far, no light has been shed on the matter, but after the dilemma with Ed O’Bannon, this creates potential for the solution to become active. College students across the country come across hard times, (whether it is from financial troubles at home or injuring his/her self from playing and losing scholarship money) so why not be prepared for when the hard times come? 
