The debate of whether college student athletes should be paid has not been resolved. The innovation of new technology in media coverage has allowed college athletics to thrive in a growing industry. The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Administration) is now bringing in over $900 million in annual revenue. Parents, students, and even fans are now questioning why college athletes are not getting paid. Although scholarships have been given out to athletes for years, these scholarships often are not enough. This leads to the question of “Should college student athletes be paid?” After completing further research and analyzing studies and cases it is evident that college student athletes should indeed be paid in addition to the athletic scholarships they may already have.

Many people believe that paying college student athletes is not necessary and should be avoided. Opponents to paying college student athletes claim that removing college sports altogether, would benefit athletes, students, parents, etc. Ekow Yankah states, “If a high-school football prodigy reported that he chose Michigan not for its academic quality, tradition, or beautiful campus but because it outbid all other suitors, a connection to the university’s values would be lost” (Yankah). While a statement like this would negatively impact a few academic employees at a university, the overall outcome of a football prodigy at a school like Michigan is going to have an inevitably positive impact on the university financially and bring in more fans. They believe that removing college sports and replacing them with minor leagues like baseball would defeat the issue of paying athletes to go to college. However, outside of the major sports such as football, basketball, baseball, etc. minor leagues created for other sports like softball, tennis, or track may not even generate enough revenue to pay athletes a decent amount of money. It appears as if baseball is successful by having an implemented system where athletes can go straight from high school to the pros or play in the minor leagues. College baseball still remains in addition to over three minor leagues and Major League Baseball. There are never scandals in college baseball regarding the illegal bribing of recruits or paying them illegally, but that is because if these young athletes are just in it for the money they can play for money straight out of high school. This system does work for baseball, however, in the majority of collegiate sports the funding does not exist to host minor league and professional leagues for athletes to make a living off of. Not only would the implementation of minor leagues in sports other than baseball be a disaster, but the removal of these same sports from U.S. colleges would create a riot. College sports are a large contributor in creating a brand for a school. After the South Carolina Gamecocks men’s basketball team went to the final four the school’s licensed apparel and merchandis increased in sales by 320% within 12 hours of the historic win against Duke (Kleinman). Daniel Kleinman quotes the New York Times saying “Everyone on campus around Columbia and even the state seems to be savoring every minute” (Kleinman). Kleinman’s statement shows how significant a team’s performance can have on a community of society. This was before the team advanced to the final four a week later, so it is undoubtable that the sales spiked even more since the Duke game. In this example, the University of South Carolina made an enormous amount of money from this single performance by our men’s basketball team, yet the players on the team will not reap any of the financial benefits with the current NCAA system in place. 

Comparatively, challengers to paying student athletes at the collegiate level argue that the full scholarship D1 athletes receive is essentially a free education. Without digging in and taking an in depth aspect of a college student athlete’s life it could be easy to understand why those on the outside looking in may believe this. These opponents who have not experienced what college athletic life is like have failed to observe that college athletes have higher standards to meet academically, mandatory study halls, and go through long days with the combination of class, practice, study hall, etc. Many student athletes at the collegiate level lose social interaction with others and the majority of them do not get to experience what college life is like for a typical college student who parties every weekend and sleeps in until noon. In addition to the limitations previously mentioned that student athletes have to deal with, the women’s basketball team at the University of South Carolina has additional restrictions that further separate themselves from the college experience. Coach Dawn Staley has a team rule in place in which players on the team can not use any form of social media on their phone during the season with the exception of a couple days here and there during winter and spring breaks. Furthermore, whenever the team has a game, the players must turn their phones in the night prior to the game and they will not receive their phones back until after the game is over the next day. While this is an effective way of keeping student athletes’ minds right in preparation for a game and providing them with the most potential to succeed on the court/field, it restricts their ability to interact with family, friends, and groups outside the team. Once the season is over and finals are completed the players are given the option to go home for the month of May, but come June they all have to be back in Columbia for mandatory summer school and training/workouts for the remainder of the summer until fall semester begins. This takes even more away from the lives of student athletes and basically turns them into employees as they have limited say in the choices they make.

As a student manager for the women’s basketball team here at the University of South Carolina I experience a good portion of what the team gets to experience whether it is good or bad. While I may not be considered an athlete, my fellow student managers and I live similarly to the athletes and have taken into consideration the commotion surrounding a college student athlete’s life. Similar to athletes at my school and schools all over the area, we too miss an overwhelming amount of classes as managers. On road trips, as a student manager I have to be able to complete the task at hand with the basketball team whether that be rebounding, filling water bottles, or distributing towels. Additionally, I have to be able to complete homework and study for classes in the few free hours available. While on campus, depending on the day I have to attend multiple classes and arrive an hour early to our three hour daily practices meaning I often go without eating a meal from 7:45am until 7pm. Although student managers like myself are not participating on the field/court and generating millions of dollars for our school like athletes are, we go through the same daily struggle minus the physical athletic sport and it only makes sense that student managers should receive a slight tuition cut as well. While only being in college for a little over a semester, my experience with college athletics has led me to appreciate the opinions of athletes and their stance when speaking out about finances.

One author further describes the circumstances of a student athletes’ daily life. He states, “Student-athletes are amateurs who choose to participate in intercollegiate athletics as a part of their educational experience, thus maintaining a distinction between student-athletes who participate in the collegiate model and professional athletes who are also students” (Mitchell). Horace Mitchell recognizes the struggle student athletes go through involving their management of time with class, practice, study hall, etc. While he is not the most enthusiastic fan of paying salaries to college student athletes, he makes a valid point by arguing that student athletes do not have the time to even balance a part time job that would supplement their institutional aid. Andrew Zimbalist, the author of the book, Unpaid Professionals, states, “With big bucks dangling before their eyes, many NCAA schools find the temptation of success too alluring to worry about the rules. Schools cheat. They cheat by arranging to help their prospective athletes pass standardized tests” (4). This is another flaw within college sports that is currently an issue but would go away with the paying of college student athletes in any of the proposed new systems. John Thelin, a professor at the University of Kentucky, compares the difference between NBA D-League (Developmental League) salaries to athletic scholarships, “Outside the NBA, players in the professional developmental league—one step from making a NBA squad—make about $43,000 per year. The college scholarship model may not be so bad for student-athletes after all.” He also makes a statement that not many authors have made which restates the idea that athletic scholarships make college athletics more competitive knowing that not everyone gets full tuition. Also these scholarships are based off of talent creating competition between teammates. Mike Gilleran of the Institute of Sports Law and Ethics at the University of Santa Clara states, “Colleges should be able to choose on a sport-by-sport basis whether they opt for the business model or not.” This means that schools that do not make a significant amount of revenue for less popular sports could stick to the scholarship model present in most colleges today but the few sports that bring in an enormous amount of revenue can pay their athletes salaries as they should.

Those who are against paying college athletes also deny the fact that it is even possible for the paying of college athletes to take place via compromise between NCAA and student athletes. Take for example, the recently famous court case, O’Bannon vs. NCAA. This particular court case exposed an argument between Ed O’Bannon, a former UCLA basketball player, and the NCAA. Ed O’Bannon is suing the NCAA for player likeness issues (Wheel). “When you play an NCAA sport, you have to sign a waiver that relinquishes your right to make money off your likeness as an NCAA athlete” (Wheel). The NCAA allowed EA Sports, a sports video game company, to use the likenesses of these student athletes to potentially earn more money for the NCAA than what they already do earn (Wheel). This would have been okay if EA Sports had stuck to current players since college students typically do not have the urge to sue people who would suspend them. However, Robert Wheel says that the NCAA and EA Sports got quite greedy and began implementing classic teams consisting of former college teams into their games which led to the downfall of NCAA video games and started this court case (Wheel). The 1996 UCLA Bruins were one of the classic teams used in EA Sports’ basketball video game, and it just so happens to be that Ed O’Bannon played for UCLA during 1996. O’Bannon became disturbed that the NCAA was using his physical features and skills in the game without paying him, and he ultimately brought this situation to court (Wheel). 

After initially looking at the general overview of the court case it looks as if the athlete suing on behalf of all former athletes in the same situation is in a bit of a pickle. Once the details of the court case are further examined it is clear that regardless of the strength of O’Bannon’s argument he is exposing the NCAA anyway. After the O’Bannon vs. NCAA trial began people started to realize that the NCAA had dug themselves into this hole as they are the ones in power because of the money they have and also the fact they essentially control student athletes as NCAA student athletes have to abide by the NCAA’s rules just to be able to participate. Robert Wheel mentions later on in his piece; “The NCAA is based on exploiting unpaid players for labor, so they really don’t like turning over documents that show how profitable that exploitation is” (Wheel). What is surprising here is that the NCAA not only knows that they make an excessive amount of money from their athletes’ performances and are afraid to publish the financial statistics. This creates additional questions as to why the NCAA is unwilling to pay its players when they have the money to do so. As one author states, “the cost of attendance-which is already in the process of being provided to student-athletes is much less than what ought to be paid” (McCann). As far as O’Bannon vs. NCAA goes, the NCAA started and still is the problem, and now it is their turn to solve this problem by providing a salary in addition to scholarships to student athletes. This court case has created a platform for student athletes to fight back and make a statement as a collective group towards the NCAA. While an official outcome has not taken place, this court case is one of the biggest steps in this long journey for student athletes.

With the O’Bannon vs. NCAA in mind, it can not go unnoticed that college football and basketball had already been in existence before the NBA and NFL, two of the biggest sports leagues in the world, were developed. Once these organizations were created, they took the cream of the crop college athletes and paid them the big bucks to perform at a higher level. This led college athletes with no option as those who pursued a professional career in either the NFL or NBA had no choice but to go through college. Within the last decade the NBA has made a rule stating that a college athlete can not enter the NBA until he has completed his freshman year in college. The NFL has set their stakes even higher by requiring student athletes to play three years in college before being eligible for the NFL draft. Thus, the window for a collegiate football player to become financially successful from playing football is slim given that the average NFL career is slightly over three years and these athletes also have to play three plus years in college while refraining from serious injuries. While this appears to be a flaw in the system of collegiate athletics, it could turn out beneficial in the long run if athletes were to be paid. Unlike baseball where players do not even have to play in college, forcing to athletes to play football and basketball in college keeps the sport alive.

A major concern in paving the way for change in the NCAA is the difficulty for student athletes to speak out while not only trying to persuade the NCAA to join their side and also managing to not get fined knowing the NCAA has strict rules about speaking out against their organization. The National Collegiate Players Association (NCPA), an organization led by student athletes, advocates for the change of rights given to student athletes both in financial regards and other scenarios (Nocera). The mission statement for the NCPA states, “To provide the means for college athletes to voice their concerns and change NCAA rules.” However, it is to be noted that this student-run organization is not simply being greedy for money. The organizations goals are prioritized via a list on their website. The NCPA’s main goal is to minimize brain trauma risks among college athletes, followed by their goal of raising scholarship amounts. The NCPA also strives to increase graduation rates among student athletes and also continue to use technology to develop equipment to keep athletes safe. 

The last argument remaining as to why college athletes should not be paid is because there is a stereotype existing in which people believe student athletes are horrible in the classroom and take fake classes provided by their respective teams to allow them to only focus on their athletic team. For years there has been a stigma placed upon college student athletes for decreasing a school’s academic accolades and infuriating alumni and current students because of a believed negative connotation their academic level was at. It is time for this stereotype to be dismissed as student athletes have increased academic success over the years with the combination of assistance of tutors, self motivation, and more commitment. The graduation rate for NCAA athletes over the years has increased steadily. As of 2016, 86% of NCAA student athletes graduate which is an impressive feat (NCAA). It is easy to point and say that classes have become easier for student athletes which is a result of their graduation rate. However, the NCAA has increased the academic standards of student athletes by continuously adding new rules for eligibility and even increasing the GPA requirement in order to be eligible for athletic competition.

After experiencing a view of the lives of collegiate student athletes it is evident that scholarships are simply not enough. In order to get the most out of college athletics student athletes are going to have to receive some type of salary separate from their scholarships. With the growing technological industry that has created an increase in revenue for college sports because of television and social media it makes no sense that the students are still receiving what they always have. When your school has two different teams make it to the final four and one wins it all within the same week it is surely time to make some change.
