The college sport industry has grown at an exponential rate over many years and shows no signs of slowing down. There has been an ongoing debate over the last decade over whether or not college athletes should be paid as a result of this growing industry. People remain on completely different sides but in reality, college athletes should not be paid because it would destroy the nature of college athletics.  

If universities were allowed to pay their athletes, it would present a myriad of problems. Problems go from more complex issues such as Title IX laws to simpler issues such as ruining the competitive balance in college sports. While paying college athletes sounds like a simple task that would satisfy many people, it goes well beyond just handing these kids money. The NCAA has a set of rules in place that strictly prohibit any athlete from receiving any sort of benefit from a staff member, coach, booster, and so on. A benefit is defined by the NCAA as “any special arrangement by an institution employee or [booster] to provide a student-athlete a benefit that is not generally available to other [students]” (NCAA). Any athlete that violates these rules is subject to a suspension by the NCAA. These rules make it impossible to pay athletes as it stands right now because any sort of payment would be deemed an impermissible benefit by the university. 

For many years there have been numerous scandals where it has come out that universities backed by boosters have in fact paid certain athletes, inducing sanctions on the school. Two recent examples would be two football players with Reggie Bush at the University of Southern California and Cam Newton at the University of Auburn. These two players received a number of benefits from cars to free meals and cash from boosters, which are usually alumni with a lot of money that had these players living a more luxurious lifestyle while still in college. In Reggie Bush’s case, it is reported that his “family received hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts” (Bhagat). They were not caught until they were already playing in the NFL but those two universities certainly felt the wrath of the NCAA sanctions that were imposed. Violations to NCAA rules and regulations occur all the time and can even come naturally with something that one would not even think would be a problem but rather an act of kindness for a poor college student. Many of these minor violations are self-reported by the universities and draw minute penalties while others can result in loss of scholarships or postseason bans. There is still speculation that many universities get away with major violations on a regular basis that aid them in recruiting and ultimately give their program an advantage. 

So, given these written rules, how is it determined and what factors come in when discussing whether or not college athletes should be paid? There are valid arguments that support athletes getting paid but there are also many arguments that shut down this idea. For instance, a key point to consider when talking about this issue is the notion that allowing these people to be paid would disrupt the competitive balance among teams. Larger universities with more money would have an opportunity to widen the gap between their teams and those at smaller schools. Another point is that due to the number of reports of NCAA violations that have been covered up and exposed, who knows how many programs out there are in violation of these rules. Aside from all of the past reported favorable treatment and benefits, many of these athletes are receiving an athletic scholarship that can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars itself. This is more than enough compensation for a busier schedule than the average college student. Combining the current NCAA guidelines with the complex guidelines in Title IX laws, a huge obstacle is present. The regulations that stand in the way as of now would certainly have to be altered in order to allow these athletes to be fairly compensated. An entirely new system with new rules would have to be in place before college athletes could legally receive benefits. 

The biggest issue in the proposition to pay student-athletes is the possibility of disrupting the competitive balance among college athletics. There is already a gap between the levels of athletics at a bigger university such as South Carolina compared to a smaller school such as Wake Forest University. If schools were allowed to pay athletes, it is logical to think that a school with around 35,000 students would be able to provide its athletes with greater benefits than a school with around 10,000 students would. The larger schools generate more revenue and thus have more money to spend. This would then allow for schools to have a new selling point in recruiting where they could present bundles of cash and gifts at their favorite prospects in an effort to get them to attend the school. The larger schools would then dominate these smaller ones and as a result there would be a divide between bunch of great teams and a bunch of terrible teams without any middle ground. This system closely resembles the professional system where organizations such as the National Basketball Association and Major League Baseball give their teams a salary cap and let them decide how much money they want to give each of their players. This system would go against the NCAA vision of amateurism for its student athletes. Although many athletes use schools as merely stepping stones to get to the professional level, the NCAA holds its student-athletes to an academic standard. Students are required to be academically engaged aside from their athletic commitments. Allowing these universities to pay these people would go against the moral values of the NCAA. 

The proposal to pay college athletes goes beyond its misalignment with NCAA goals. Something that true fans of sports are failing to realize is that although their favorite team might get better, a good number of others would certainly get a lot worse. The upcoming NCAA March Madness Tournament is a perfect example of the competitive balance in college basketball. The tournament garners the name “March Madness” because it is a time where smaller schools with talent get the chance to pull off unthinkable upsets over major programs. Per Christian D’Andrea with SB Nation, there were nineteen instances of higher seeded teams beating lower seeded teams. This is because there are a number of talented players that decide to attend a smaller school due to proximity to their home or because they simply like the school. Allowing universities to offer benefits in a recruiting package would give these talented athletes overwhelming incentive to join a major program. As a result March Madness would not have its name without the competitive balance in college basketball. 

Another issue to consider is that a large portion of the revenue generated by these programs comes from people tuning in to watch on television. TV Networks pay millions of dollars on deals with conferences for rights to air their games. In 2016, “the SEC generated an estimated $375 million in TV money” (Smith). The conference emerged as “the most valuable conference” and “made $90 million more than any other conference from its major revenue streams” (Smith). Forbes tracks the annual revenue of the Power Five Conferences (SEC, Pac 12, Big 12, ACC, and Big 10) compared to conferences with smaller schools and the difference in revenue is millions. These Power Five teams would eventually be the only notable teams when the schools with lower revenues are left behind, another factor threatening competitive balance. 

The last thing to consider when trying to maintain balance in college athletics is the goals of the university. If the NCAA goes through the process of changing their rules and ends up allowing student-athletes to receive benefits, who says the university has to provide them? Some universities value athletics to a lesser extent than others and would rather spend their revenue on things such as improving the campus or upgrading technology. If every school starts paying their athletes, the ones that refuse to may completely lose their teams. 

Another big thing standing in the way of allowing universities to pay their athletes is the existence of Title IX laws. These federal laws require universities to cater to the needs of males and females equally. Each gender must be provided with the same opportunities in order to comply with these laws. This would mean that all athletes at the university would need to be paid equally. Problems would arise if they all need to be paid equally because that now includes the athletes outside of the major sports. That presents a problem because a large portion of the argument for paying these people is that they should get a portion of the revenue they create. The sports that are rarely to never aired on television bring in minimal revenue that is irrelevant in comparison to the revenue produced by the major sports. It would be required that if one sport gets paid, every sport gets paid for both genders. People out there who are pushing for student-athletes to get paid are mainly pushing for men’s football and basketball, the two sports that generate the most revenue. What these people fail to realize is that the revenue created by that particular sport goes directly to the school to be distributed how they want, not just to athletics. Title IX would leave schools at the difficult decision of paying all or none of its student-athletes. That being said, it is hard to imagine a small school choosing to put the little bit of revenue they have towards paying its athletes. 

When talking about the issue of whether or not to pay college athletes there is a different group of people that believe without a doubt they should be paid. Many of these people arguing for this case are former and current student-athletes themselves but they still present a few valid points. Their argument starts with the claim that the players are the ones playing the sport and generating the revenue while everyone else is making money off of them through things such as merchandise, TV deals, and advertisements. Something that goes along with that statement is the claim that athletes should be viewed as employees of the university for their efforts, making the university their employer. The rest of the people believe that athletes are putting their bodies at risk, especially in sports like football, and potentially risking a professional career. While these are all sensible arguments, they certainly are not flawless. 

Some people say athletes are being used by the universities to generate revenue for themselves. Athletes go through hours of physically imposing workouts and studying their sport to prepare for a long season of games. Not to mention the time-crunched weeks where they have limited time to prepare for their next opponent. They spend hours watching film of previous games and fine-tuning their craft so they can perform at the highest level possible for the university. They have to do all of this while keeping up with their schoolwork, making their schedules extremely packed with little free time. As of now their motive is to put on the best performance possible for their fans while maybe even showing off for scouts at the next level. Many of these players hope to manufacture a professional career through sports. While these players put in hours that resemble the schedule that a job would have, they do not get paid for it. An article by the Harvard Gazette was recently posted about former UCLA basketball player, Ed O’Bannon. He recently filed a lawsuit with the NCAA looking to “collect damages for the NCAA’s use of players’ images, likenesses, and names without permission” (Pazzanese). The reason for players not receiving money for these types of things is as previously mentioned; the NCAA sticks to its vision of amateurism. If players were to get paid at the college level, what would be the distinction between that and the professional level? Not paying these athletes gives them incentive to work hard in school and in sports with hopes that one day they will get paid… but at the next level. 

Another angle these athletes are taking in an attempt to get compensation is they claim they are putting their health at risk for the university. Players in more physically daunting sports such as football are at a higher risk of injury that could potentially end their prospective career. A recent example of something like this is the case of Marcus Lattimore. Marcus Lattimore was a runningback for the University of South Carolina that was a Heisman Trophy finalist and a surefire first round pick ready to make millions of dollars. Tragedy struck in 2012 when Marcus Lattimore sustained an injury that would change his life forever. He dislocated his right knee, tearing several ligaments and nerves. It was so gruesome that Doctor James Andrews, a man that surgically repairs injuries to professional athletes regularly, said that he thought Lattimore “had a 20 percent chance of walking normally again” and it was “the worst injury he’d ever seen” (Aschof). This caused Lattimore to miss the rest of the season and slide into the fourth round in the NFL draft, costing him millions of dollars (Aschof). This is an example of a college athlete’s nightmare. Lattimore never returned to form and retired from the NFL a few years later. Gifted athletes destined to play in the NFL are risking their careers by playing in college. Athletes use college as a stage to show off their ability to the next level and although injuries can be very unfortunate, it is part of the game. These people are essentially paid to come to the school by form of scholarship and know the risks of the sport they play when signing up. A system could be put in place to insure players that suffer devastating injuries and compensate them partially for their sudden clouded career path but that is not what some people want. This does not call to pay all college athletes. The athletes should not be paid because of a hypothetical situation of a potential injury. 

The debate of whether or not to pay college athletes will go on for years to come but a conclusion has to be made someday. Someone needs to settle this issue because the current outlook is either players could start boycotting or college athletes could be treated as professionals, which they are not. The idea of paying student-athletes sounds nice but it is not as simple as it sounds. The combination of NCAA regulations and Title IX laws block this view on one side from a legal standpoint. On the other side, the concept of amateurism, a risk of ruining balance among teams, and the fact that student athletes already receive valuable scholarships stands in the way of these athletes receiving desired benefits. 
