College athletics are a growing market in the United States today. Three hundred and fifty colleges and universities solely compose Division I athletics. Within Division I athletics there are over 6,000 teams consisting of over 170,000 student athletes (NCAA). The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) over sees all of these athletes as well as the athletes in Divisions 2 and 3. These students are responsible for not only their athletic responsibilities but also the demanding work of a college or university. Unlike other college divisions, Division I teams offer students scholarships to play sports at their university. These scholarships are intended to cover student’s tuition, room and boarding, books and fees. While these students are receiving benefits from the school, the school is making more money off of their athletic skills. In 2014, the total revenue of colleges sports was more than $16 billion and over $407 million in Division I alone (SMA). With the increasing cost of a college education and the amount of money the “student athletes” are making for their schools raises the question, should college athletes be paid, further than in scholarships, for their role in generating school revenue as well as the revenue for the NCAA? The NCAA argues that student athletes should not be paid for variety of reasons, such as amateurism and the extreme financial burden of paying all athletes, while many other organizations believe all student athletes should be compensated for their work for the school. These arguments are too broad, though. This paper argues that the NCAA or Division I athletic programs can bear the burden for paying student athletes if there are boundaries. By looking at the amount of money made in Division I athletics, we see that Division I sports bring in significantly more revenue than the other divisions, which suggests it is a more competitive division and thus the student athletes can and deserve to be compensated with tuition and a stipend based on sport, ability, and school. 

The NCAA adheres to a policy that student athletes are amateurs. The NCAA states they chose to keep student athletes amateurs, “to ensure the students’ priority remains on obtaining a quality educational experience and that all of student-athletes are competing equitably” (NCAA). To make sure the students’ priority is obtaining a quality education, the NCAA created bylaws and requirements to make sure these student athletes are in fact students. The NCAA amateur requirements do not allow: “contact with professional teams, salary for participating in athletics, benefits from an agent or prospective agent, prize money above actual and necessary expenses, and play with professionals” (NCAA). By setting these rules for NCAA athletes, the NCAA is protecting athletes from being exploited by professional and commercial enterprises (Schneider). The NCAA does allow scholarships for athletes through the school’s athletic program though. These scholarships are used to pay for tuition, room, board, books and fees. Many student athletes would argue this scholarship is not enough compensation for the money they are making the NCAA and for their school. Even though these students are generating revenue for the NCAA and their school, they cannot be awarded with extra money for a few reasons. One of the biggest reasons student athletes do not receive more money for their athletic abilities is because the NCAA is a nonprofit organization. If the NCAA were to pay student athletes, it would lose its current nonprofit status (Schneider). Another major reason schools cannot pay athletes is because of Title IX. 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” (Berishaj, DiBella). This means that if a student were to receive more benefits other than their scholarship, then the NCAA is required by law to pay every student athlete the same bonus. There are currently over 170,000 athletes in Division I athletics alone; to pay all of these athletes would not be financially possible. A recent study proved this point, “it was estimated that by providing a $200 monthly stipend to all NCAA student athletes receiving a scholarship would cost over $540 million” (Schneider). To pay every student athlete would not make financial sense for the NCAA. This raises the question of whether the school or university should pay this instead of the NCAA. For the school to pay student athletes there would need to be an increase in student fees. These fees would be paid for by the regular student body. To be able to pay every student athlete at a school through student fees there would be a huge increase in tuition, which is not fair to the regular student body. The school or university would not be able to cover this expense by themselves either with the costs of stadium maintenance, practice faculties, and other necessary expenses for the athletic programs.  Students are compensated with a scholarship that covers their tuition and that is enough for the NCAA. Although these students have to manage playing a full time sport and being a student, the NCAA makes it very clear that student athletes are students first, athletes second (NCAA). The NCAA even offers student athletes academic help that is not available to the rest of the student body. By giving student athletes extra help the NCAA ensures that these athletes are in fact students first. This extra help from the NCAA has been successful with student athletes, “According to the most recent Graduation Success Rate data, 82 percent of Division I freshmen scholarship student-athletes who entered college in 2004 earned a degree” (NCAA). With all of the additional benefits the NCAA offers to student athletes makes it imperative that, although student athletes do receive a scholarship, the additional benefits offered to them are worth more than most believe. 

Even though the NCAA follows a strict amateurism policy, many student athletes still believe they deserve more money from the school and their athletic program yet they do not receive anything further than a scholarship. In 2014, Division I revenues exceeded $407 million. This $407 million does not include the $10.8 billion 14-year agreement between the NCAA and CBS Sports and Turner Broadcasting. This media deal alone contributes to 81% of revenue for the NCAA (NCAA). It is very clear that the NCAA is generating a substantial amount of money every year. Not to mention the many endorsement deals that schools have with athletic companies to wear and use brand name shoes, jerseys, and equipment. In 2016 the University of Michigan signed an endorsement deal with Nike. This deal would have all 31 University of Michigan sports teams wearing Nike athletic products. The contract is for 11 years with an option to extend and is worth over $170 million (Snyder). Every Division I athletic program also has equipment endorsements deals with major brand name companies such as: Nike, Under Armour, and Adidas. To understand the size of the NCAA sport market it is important to see where this money is going since the NCAA identifies as a nonprofit organization. The NCAA’s most profitable sports today are football and men’s basketball with the establishment of the “College Football Playoff” and basketballs “March Madness Tournament”. These events create an enormous amount of revenue through media broadcasts rights and ticket sales but where does this money go? Coaches do see a good portion of this revenue, “The median head coach among the 126 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) was $1.9 million in 2013” (Sanderson, Siegfried). This median does not come close to the amount that “famous” coaches see. Nick Saban, University of Alabama’s head football coach, earns $7 million per year before incentive clauses that pay coaches more based off of the performance of their team (Sanderson, Siegfried). Coaches are making millions of dollars every year based off of the performance of their athletes who do not see a penny of this money other than in minuscule scholarships compared the the revenue they generate for schools and universities. How is it fair that the student athletes compete for fame and glory but do not receive the benefits their coaches do. To compare this to professional sports, “Professional players across all the major sports now earn about 50 percent of revenue” (Goff). If this 50 percent figure was used with the net worth of college or university teams it is clear how much the athletes are really worth to the school and to the NCAA. The University of Texas made the most revenue of all Division I football programs in 2015, generating $121,382,436 (SMA). This would mean that the student athletes on the team were worth more than $50 million based off the 50 percent of revenue figure. Even though this is not a professional team, it helps make it clear how valuable these athletes are to the school’s program and to the NCAA.  Although student athletes are not on the same level as professional athletes, it is not fair for student athletes to only get rewarded with an athletic scholarship while the university and NCAA are profiting so greatly. 

In Division I athletics, student athletes are rewarded with a scholarship to attract them to a school. These scholarships are different by athlete based upon athletic skill, and high school academics.  Usually the larger the scholarship, the more likely a student will go to that school especially if they would not be able to afford a college education without athletics which is increasingly common based on the increase price of a college education. This is why recruiting becomes so important. Coaching and recruitment staffs search all over the country for the best athletes to improve their team. The average NCAA scholarship in 2015 for men is $14,270 and $15,162 for women in Division I (Scholarship Stats). This is compared to the average cost of college tuition in 2015 which was $24,070 for a public four year out of state university and $9,650 for a public four year in state university (College Board). Since country wide recruitment is so popular, many athletes come to a school from out of state which is far more expensive than an in state tuition. The average athletic scholarship does not come to close to being enough for an out of state student athlete. Spencer Turkel, a sophomore at the University of Delaware, plays lacrosse and receives a scholarship from the school. When asked whether his scholarship was enough compared to the price of a college education he stated, “While the scholarship does help, playing a Division I sport means you have no time to get a job during the school year. This means you have no way of making money during the school year which can go until late may in some cases” (Turkel). This difference in scholarship and tuition becomes an issue for many student athletes and they need to work to pay the difference in some situations. Having to manage a full time athletic program, classes, and a job can be very difficult for student athletes and until recently was not possible for student athletes through the NCAA strict rules, “Only in 1996 did the NCAA pass an amendment to the bylaws, allowing student athletes to obtain part-time employment during the school year, which permits students to make up the difference between the value of an athletic scholarship and the university’s ‘full cost of attendance’” (Hurst, Pressly). Even though student athletes are now allowed to have part-time jobs they still have to fit that into a busy schedule with classes, tests, workouts, practice, games, and maybe a social life in time permits. It is clear that student athletes are not receiving enough compensation for their very busy lives. 

With the price of tuition increasing year by year it is evident that student athletes should receive something extra for what they do.  The NCAA should consider a plan for Division I athletic programs to help these students financially. To help these students the NCAA should consider amending their bylaws of amateurism so student athletes can get the financial support they deserve. Although it is not possible to pay every Division I college athlete based on Title IX, the NCAA should consider a program that rewards the sports that are generating the most revenue. This reward would be in the form of a monthly stipend. This stipend would be rewarded once a month to the teams that are doing well and thus are creating the school or university and the NCAA more money. The stipend would not be a very large amount of money but it would be shared by the team most deserving. To determine which teams deserve a monthly stipend would be based off of the team’s record. For example: if a colleges football team beats multiple ranked opponents and are ranked high in the standing, they would receive the stipend that month. If the team starts playing poorly and losing games, the stipend would be taken away or reduced. Even though not all student athletes would get rewarded, the stipend would become an incentive for teams to begin playing better. To better understand the stipend plan, look at the University of South Carolina. In 2015 the football team generated $59,768,622 in revenue (SMA). This was by far the largest revenue generating sport at the University of South Carolina. In the same year (2015) at University of South Carolina the men’s basketball team only generated $8,795,178 in revenue (SMA).  Since the football team created more revenue for the school that year than the men’s basketball team, the football team would be rewarded with the stipend. With this program, student athletes would strive to compete at a higher level to receive benefits from the school. This money is not intended to just be spending money for the students but instead it would be used to help the athletes who need the financial aid when the scholarship isn’t enough by itself. The NCAA states student athletes are students first, athletes second but if the athlete cannot afford to be a student then he or she cannot be an athlete. The NCAA should amend the current bylaws of amateurism so that students can afford to stay in school and afford to be members of the team. This would not mean student athletes would get agents. The current bylaws would remain the same expect the student athletes would get more money than just their scholarships.

To conclude, the NCAA is a multibillion dollar organization generating over $16 billion dollars every year yet, they identify as a nonprofit organization. The NCAA still does not reward the athletes that make all of that revenue possible year after year. Without student athletes there would be no NCAA and no college sports market. Instead of making it more difficult for student athletes to afford a higher education with increasing price of tuition and fees, the NCAA should consider a stipend plan to give back to the athletes that are the true source of the NCAA multibillion dollar net worth. The hard work of student athletes should be rewarded through more than just a scholarship which in most cases does not cover the real expenses of being a college student. 
