I would like to address the debate of whether or not to pay college athletes. I believe college athletes should not be paid because it would be hard to regulate, an arms race type of business would be created, and college sports would lose it’s passion. Regulating paying the athletes would be difficult because who exactly would pay the athletes? Would the school, conference, or the NCAA itself pay the athletes? If the school would handle the payments only football and basketball really bring in any money (Marshall and Walch). If the conferences were in charge of the payments the Southeastern Conference and the Atlantic Coast Conference would have the most money because they hold the most big schools. While a school in the American Athletic Conference would have little money to pay their athletes because they are filled with smaller schools. Furthermore, some  Division I football and basketball programs withdraw more from their athletic budget every year, and do not make money (Johnson and Acquaviva). Another reason why college athletes should not be paid is because college sports would lose the passion. The athletes would just head to the college that pays them the most and not consider actually getting a good education or the traditions that are given by that university (Yankah). Small schools would most likely be overlooked as a whole since big schools would most likely pay more.  According to a journal written by Kahn, an arms race would ultimately be created through the college offering money just like professional sports like soccer. The arms race would be equivalent to European soccer as they pay some of their players millions of dollars, and the better you are the more money you could receive. For example, Messi arguable one of the best soccer players receives 40 million euros a year. This does not work for college athletes because not all the athletes are there on a scholarship there could be walk ons on the team. In the european soccer leagues everyone is getting paid a salary whether or not you actually play. Would it be fair for a college team to pay some players but not others? 

College sports have been a huge crowd favor since the NCAA was created by President Roosevelt  in 1906 (Hartnett). College football and men’s basketball being the frontrunners in  broadcasting views and sales of merchandise. Over the years, the question “Should student athletes get paid?” rose because the NCAA has recently obtained 913 million dollars from merchandise sales and broadcasting rights alone (Pazzanese). Student athletes on average for Division I scholarship is 25,000 dollars per year (Hartnett). However, most of this money can not be used and just goes to tuition, housing, and books. Also, this is only for Division I schools; Division II and III receive much less. If athletes were paid would they not be considered professionals since they are receive a payment for playing their sport. These athletes that actually get a chance at getting paid are only those of a college football and men’s basketball team, since these teams are the only ones that actually bring in revenue for the school. Since men’s basketball and college football are the two sports that actually bring in revenue, would women’s sports teams get paid also. Recently there has been talk about equal pay or Title IX within the professional sports industry. Title IX 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 discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” (U.S Department of Education Office for Civil Rights) . For example, the United States women’s soccer team won the world cup, however got paid less than the men’s team who did not even make it past qualification rounds (McManus) . It would wrong to just pay just the men’s basketball team and the football team and not any women’s team even if they do not make that much or any revenue for the college. It is a common thought that men’s college football and basketball teams make up money for all a college’s sports team that statement is incorrect though  (McManus). As the United States is trying to keep equality controlled, it would make it impossible to pay  college athletes since not one school would be able to pay both men’s and women’s sports teams.         

How would you regulate student athletes to get paid? The only sports that actually generate a profit are men’s basketball and college football. Sports such as swimming, tennis, and volleyball do not produce any income for a school even a Division I university (Hartnett). These sports can actually withdraw from the profits that only a small percentage of Division I football and basketball team make (Johnson and Acquaviva). Johnson and Acquavia state that the NCAA and other programs such as Amateur Athletic Union and Little league were all created to make a location to play these sports, and that should not be overlooked. The NCAA does receive a lot of money from the men’s basketball and football teams, but it is still not enough to pay every athlete male and female. Also, paying college athletes is not a basis of the NCAA. The NCAA was made to spread the love of sports throughout the country. A second question that is most often overlooked is would women student athletes also get paid. It would be wise for that to happen so equality can be reached. Even so,  it would be financially impossible for both the women’s teams and men’s teams to be paid even just a small amount simply because neither bring in enough money for their university.  Another problem that arises when considering paying athletes is how much should athletes should get paid and should the athletes get paid derived by their performance on the field or court (Johnson and Acquaviva). This would create a whole new element of competition between teammate and create an “arms race” type of business. 

The great “arms race” would be described by the highest rating athlete would go to the highest paying school. This generally already happens today when recruiting athletes for college sports. Many recruited athletes consider how much their scholarship is going to cover over the years, but they also consider the education and traditions that their interested school has. If athletes were paid many athletes would overlook the importance of education and would most likely focus on how much money they could make. This arm race that would be created if athletes were paid would first of all be an unfair contest with smaller schools because they would be completely overlooked since they would place a smaller bid for an athlete. This small school could have been the best place for a certain college athlete’s major, however the small school would be completely ignored as an option. When an athlete comes to a college they are considered a student-athlete not just an athlete. Furthermore, if college athletes were paid the arms race would make the teams very unbalanced because the school that has the most money will be able to obtain more interest of an athlete to possibly get paid more. Granted college football and men’s basketball bring in millions of dollars they will not be able to pay every player on their team the same amount of money.    

The arms race would create a loss of passion in college sports since certain big colleges would have every good player from all over the states. There would be less of a chance of major upsets and most athletes will just be focused on making money rather than enjoying their time playing their favorite sport. Yankah, a avid sport lover that writes for The New Yorker,  gives reasons why athletes should not get paid . The author gives many good reasons such as getting to play the sport you love and probably have been playing for years is undermined in its value (Yankah). Furthermore, if the athlete only chose to play at an university simply because they offered the most money the value and traditions of that university would be forgotten (Yankah). Since college is meant to be a transitional and learning time of one’s life, education and experiences should not be overlooked.  Yankah suggested that more sports should follow the NBA and extend the age range, so the very talented young athletes that want to be paid can have a chance to make it pro. Which is important and a feasible way of giving the young, “Lebron James” of football go and try to get picked up by a pro team (Yankah). This would help separate the athletes that want to get paid and the others that play to simply enjoy what they are playing.   

There is also the other side of the argument that college athletes should be paid. In the film, Schooled: The Price of College Sport, paying college athletes was pushed for the reason that they can not use any of their scholarship money. However, not every athlete gets a scholarship so would you just pay the athletes that receive a scholarship and just not pay the rest of them seems unfair. Plus you have all the women student athletes to consider.  Pazzanese interviews Peter Carfagna a owner of a ports law clinic. In this interview it shows how many big colleges do give their athletes something a free education, and the athlete does not have accept the scholarship then the college can just give it to ten other athletes. If college athletes were to be paid the whole idea of a college athlete would disappear because they would just be professionals. A college athlete is defined as an athlete that balances school and playing their sport. While a professional is defined as someone who works to receive a salary. They are similar because a college athlete is considered getting paid through the experiences and education that they are receiving to be a student athlete. Education and experiences should not be overlooked becauses it is like an investment. If the athlete puts the time and effort to play their sport that many people would give anything to play and also receive their degree overtime they will get paid eventually, whether it is through the sport or their degree.      

Similar to the Schooled: The Price of College Sport movie, Parent discusses why student athletes should get paid. He brings up examples of college football players that said they do not have enough money to pay for groceries and clothing (Parent, 226-230). The article also states that when president Roosevelt made the NCAA the questions of gender equality was not foreseen yet  (Parent, 226-230). The article also stated that Title IX is what is holding the college athletes getting paid down because there would be a law broken if only male student athletes were paid.  (Parent, 226-230).  Since, when the NCAA was created this problem was not seen, but now is a big issue. Parent suggests that the NCAA should reform and give the athletes a voice, or to change the restrictions of the scholarship money to more than just rooming, board, and tuition  (Parent, 226-230).  

 Another author that believes that athletes should be paid is Tyson Hartnett.  He is important because he played professional basketball in Europe and South America. In his Huffington Post article he argues that college athletes should be paid for many reason such as the athlete can not use any of their scholarship money for hidden cost like textbooks and groceries (Hartnett). The article also explains how the founder, Theodore Roosevelt, did not think the NCAA would become this billion dollar company. The author is saying not to pay athletes 5,000 dollars or 10,000 dollars but even just $2,000 paid over the semester would give athletes a chance to manage their money and have a little money to spend (Hartnett). However, would all athletes receive this even if their program spends more than it brings into the college. This also brings up the issue of who will pay the athletes, small schools surely can not afford to do it . 

   

College sports being a very popular thing to watch on the television brings a question should the athletes get paid since they bring money in for broadcasters and for their university. I believe they should not because regulation of payments would be hard since who actually pays the athletes would be hard to figure out. Also, most school programs do not even make a profit throughout the year. The only ones that do make a profit are a small percentage of Division I men’s basketball teams and college football teams. The question of paying women’s athletes would also need to be addressed if only the men’s basketball and football teams are making a profit. The only thing you could do is pay both men’s and women’s, however not one college makes enough to do that. If the NCAA was responsible for making the payments to student athletes it would not be what President Theodore Roosevelt would want for the program. He founded the NCAA to be a platform for colleges to play with safe regulations and to unite the country by using sports. Another reason, I believe college athletes should not be paid is because college sports would lose their passion. As an avid college sport fan, I think by not paying the athletes lets the athlete focus their passion and energy on their sport and not how much money they can possibly earn like professionals. I believe this is what separates college sports from professionals is their level passion when they play. The last reason I believe college athletes should not be paid is because an arms race would be created. This would cause monopolies in sport teams as one big college would have all the really good players. The student athlete would also be going to a college just for the money rather than considering the education benefits and traditions of a college. Small colleges would be completely overlooked when the smaller colleges could actually be better for a certain college athlete. Some solutions to the question of paying student athletes suggested that athletes should be given a small amount of money not over 2,000 dollars to help the athlete to learn how to save money etc, however this is hard to complete since most schools do not make enough money to pay every athlete that sum. Another solution, is for the NFL to open their age range like the NBA does, so the really good athletes that usually bring in the most revenue can try to make it on a pro team. Although, this would encourage an athlete to skip college and possibly not get a degree to fall back on, which could be bad because the athlete may not make it on a pro team or could get a dreadful career ending injury. Education is surprisingly the main focus of the NCAA and colleges. The NCAA and college teams even has a policy where a student athlete has to keep their grades up to a certain point or they may be suspended a couple of games. College sports are meant to be their own entity where an athlete can play their favorite sport but also receive an education adding salaries to this equation would ruin the basis of college sports.          

    