
One of the biggest sources of entertainment in America, is watching sports. In fact, people tune in daily to watch their favorite sports teams play, or watch the latest news following the sports world. For most, a big sports feed to follow is college sports, allowing those who cannot be at the games in person to keep up with their team’s status. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, around 69.2% of high school graduates were enrolled in college in 2015. Of those 69.2, 45% follow college sports and watch the games. On average, college sports bring in $871.6 million in revenue, from sporting events such as football, basketball, baseball, etc. Yet, none of this money goes towards the athletes who make it possible. Every night they play, they are marketing a school and a brand. As a college student, who has multiple friends on sports teams at the University of South Carolina, I have received a first hand look at how hard athletes work and how often these players are marketed and used for the school’s personal benefits. Also, when reading about the money that is generated by college sports and the NCAA, one question crosses the mind. Why are the athletes who are bringing in these ratings, not seeing payment for it? 

In this paper, I will be arguing on behalf of college athletes, claiming that they deserve compensation for the work that they do for the Universities. In my paper, I will talk about how the NCAA is cheating the student athletes, by calling them amateurs. By calling them amateurs, the NCAA claims they do not have to pay the athletes, regardless of the work that they put in. Also, I will mention other ways the NCAA has taken advantage of these student athletes and avoided compensating them for their hard work. I will also compare the athlete to an employee in a real world job. Using these comparisons, I will be able to show how the normal athlete outworks the average employee, yet receive no payment because they are not considered employees, regardless of the millions of dollars in revenue they bring in every Saturday. Also, I will mention how the Universities often over pay coaches and over value them. By lowering the salary caps of most coaches, schools could afford to pay most athletes. It would also include refraining from spending so much money on facilities as well. The schools often give the coaches and athletic directors say over where the money made from sporting events goes, but if we did not spend so much on new facilities when we have working ones available, we could give more towards athletes. I would cover how even though athletes are given free educations, that should not count as payment. Even though they do get to attend major universities for free, the degrees they are working towards are often useless majors that would not benefit them if they ended up not going pro in their respected sports. One of the final things I would do in my argument is get rid of the myth that paying student athletes would affect other students. Many worry that normal student would have to pay more to cover these athletes payments, but if we kept the payment from money made in sports, that would be enough to cover the school’s athletes. To finish up my paper, I would run down a list of counter arguments and why they are valid, but how my argument disproves them. 

The NCAA coins terms such as “Student Athlete” to avoid the possibility of having to give student athletes compensation. They also market these athletes off making money off their names, yet if the athlete were to sell merchandise with his or her name on it, then it is a NCAA violation. Also, by calling them amateurs and not paying them would be considered criminal in most workplaces. “The issue is that through the NCAA our nation's universities collectively cap their players' compensation, which in other businesses would violate Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, a criminal offense”, (Sanderson, Chicago Tribune). So, the NCAA is technically committing a criminal act, however it is not being dealt with, which is unjust and unfair to the athletes. This all began when states began trying to classify their football players has state employees because they made money for state universities. However, by giving them the name “student athlete”, it allowed for the NCAA to disregard this notion to give these players payment. “Today, much of the NCAA’s moral authority—indeed much of the justification for its existence—is vested in its claim to protect what it calls the "student-athlete." The term is meant to conjure the nobility of amateurism, and the precedence of scholarship over athletic endeavor. But the origins of the "student-athlete" lie not in a disinterested ideal but in a sophistic formulation designed, as the sports economist Andrew Zimbalist has written, to help the NCAA in its "fight against workmen’s compensation insurance claims for injured football players."” What is basically being stated, is that the whole purpose behind developing the term was to avoid payment of worker’s compensation. The NCAA is more concerned with keeping their money in their system that they would create a new term to avoid payment of injured players, who they broadcast and advertise regularly. In fact, in 1974 TCU’s Kent Waldrep, experienced this exact situation. After being paralyzed from the neck down in an on-field incident, Waldrep filed a lawsuit trying to receive worker’s compensation for his injury. The case went through the 90’s, but in the early 2000’s, his claim was rejected stating that due to rules filed by the NCAA he was not considered an employee.

 What many fails to realize, is that a college athlete, is an employee. Like most employees, they have responsibilities and goals they must reach to maintain their “job”, but the only difference is, the athletes are not getting paid. What is even crazier is that a college athlete works more than your typical American worker. “The typical Division I college football player devotes 43.3 hours per week to his sport -- 3.3 more hours than the typical American work week”, (Edleman, Forbes Magazine). Also, they must complete school work for class for the following morning. However, we assume that because they are given a scholarship that should cover them for the next four years, so we assume. It turns out, that most scholarships that are given to athletes are only renewable for the following year and the coach decides whether you deserve it. According to Jeff Locke, former UCLA Kicker, “you can have a 4.0 in the classroom, but if you are not performing on the field, then you may still lose your scholarship.” What does that mean you may wonder, well, it means that the schools are aware that they are not giving these athletes money to do well in school. If they are not performing on the field, their scholarship is taken away from them, but remember, “students first”. Also, think about it this way, a big university will pay a student minimum wage to work in the university bookstore. That student will bring in maybe a thousand dollars in revenue every month for the school and are required to represent the school properly while working there. An athlete, does the exact same thing, but rather than a thousand dollars every month, it is about a million every game day. However, if one were to decide paying a student in the bookstore was not right, people would find it preposterous, yet that’s exactly what we do to athletes every year. We put these athletes on such a pedestal because the media and even the universities make them out to be larger than life, but often, we can find athletes struggling in the same area’s as a normal college student. So, why do we not give athletes a cut of payment? Well, the NCAA deems it unethical, but they also need as much money as they can get to make sure their big name coaches are getting big time salaries.

In college sports, I feel as though it is fair to say that college coaches are overvalued and our players, essentially have no value at all. Without these athletes, the sport would not take place, yet rather than giving them a fair cut of the profit, we would rather over pay for a big name coach, that if we are all being honest, we are not showing up every Saturday to watch. The University of Alabama brings in, $143.3 million in athletic revenue alone (Marc Edleman, Forbes.com). As of 2016, their Head Coach, Nick Saban had a salary of 7.09 million dollars. To pay the football coach, $7.09 million is ludicrous and the fact that the athlete who is putting in the work gets nothing is absurd. Also, “USA Today reported that the average salary for head coaches in the NCAA Division I Basketball Tournament is $1.47 million”, (Mike Gillrean, Law.scu.edu). Which is ridiculous considering at most universities, professors are not getting that kind of pay for teaching students. By putting a cap on how much teams and coaches make, we could allow for athletes to receive somewhat of a salary for their hard work and contribution to the school’s success. “Every Division I men’s basketball and football team would have a salary cap, just as the pros do — except the amounts would be vastly lower. In basketball, the cap would be $650,000. In football, it would be $3 million. It is ludicrous to argue that the Power 5 programs cannot afford this; the combined $3.65 million is barely half the $7 million that Michigan Coach Jim Harbaugh made this season”, (Nocera, New York Times). This would allow for a fair use of the programs money, allowing all of those who contribute to earn a little compensation for their efforts. Patrick McLaughlin, Director of the Program for Economic Research on Regulation at George Mason University and author of, College Football Players, Not Coaches, Deserve to Be Paid, argues that as a college athlete who brings in millions of dollars in revenue for the school should be compensated for their work, rather than the school and NCAA giving millions of dollars to the coaches. McLaughlin states, “The salaries that would be paid to the players is instead paid to the coach. That’s why Jim Harbaugh can quit the NFL, go to the University of Michigan, and still get the same compensation he made in the NFL”. It is ridiculous that a college coach can make the same amount in college as he would in the NFL. It also proves that the NCAA over values and over pays these coaches. Also, they are allowing coaches to decide what to do with the remaining money from revenue that is made by the sport and rather than turning it towards players, they prefer to make new facilities, even though they have ones that are if fine condition. A perfect example of this is at Clemson University. Clemson has just paid for and built a new football complex that is $55 million, complete with a bowling alley and a nap room. Yes, you heard correct, a nap room. So, rather than paying their players just a little bit of money, they spend all of this for a building that will come complete with a room for napping, but the players already have one of those, it is called a dorm. Every school wants to show just how luxurious it is to attend, but are we spending all this excess money the right way? In fact, Taylor Branch, an American author and historian best known for his work regarding civil rights and is a huge advocate for paying athletes writes, “As we spoke, two giant construction cranes towered nearby over the university’s Kenan Stadium, working on the latest $77 million renovation. (The University of Michigan spent almost four times that much to expand its Big House.), (Taylor Branch, workplacebullying.org). Universities could afford to pay the coaches less and not update a facility every time they have a winning season, resulting in money that could be distributed among athletes. 

Saying an athlete should not receive payment because they have a free education is not remotely a fair argument at all. Often, many athletes are given a scholarship that will cover most of their school expenses, yes, but as a college student, I am aware that does not mean you are good on money for the rest of the year. Many times, you will find yourself struggling to pay for groceries or bathroom utilities and for many of these athletes, they come from low income areas where their families cannot afford to send them extra money. So, many times they will go to bed hungry or must ask a coach if he can get them food, which is an NCAA violation. Arain Foster (former running back for University of Tennessee) stated, “There were plenty of times during the month where I didn’t have enough money for food”, he goes on to speak about how his coach did bring them food, but they were forced to keep quiet about it because it did break NCAA rules, stating coaches cannot buy things for their players. Also, athletes are not at college to do well in school. If we are being honest, most are aware that athletes are not the stars of the classroom. Most athletes are taking classes that will work best with their sports schedules. Or they are taking easy classes that they will not be able to fail so that they will not be a risk of not being able to play. So, most of the time they are just basically skating by, but if they do not miss the big game Saturday, no one bats an eye. “For example, football and men’s basketball players identify themselves more strongly as athletes than as students, gave more weight in choosing their college to athletics than to academics, and, at least in season, spend more time on athletics than on their studies (and a large majority say they spend as much or more time on sports during the off-season)” (Gary Gutting, New York Times). These athletes are not dumb, they are very aware that they are not at college to be 4.0 students, they are here to win games. If they are not performing on the field, then their work in the classroom becomes irrelevant because if they lose their “Sport” scholarship, then the money that covers their school disappears and eventually, so does the student. Making a claim that an athlete is at college to be a student first is preposterous. The NCAA and universities are treating all these athletes as if they are first round picks and a guaranteed a spot in the professional level of their sport, relying on them to be at the most three year students and then declaring for their sport draft. Therefore, leaving many of them without a degree, and those who receive one, are getting a degree that was intentionally given so the school would not worry about failing classes. In fact, the NCAA is aware how rarely their college athletes go pro. According to a table chart on the NCAA’s website, not even 10% of athletes in their own sport make it to the major professional level. So, why is nothing being done to encourage those athletes that do not make it to stay and learn? For starters, they do not have the money that would allow them to stay, but if we were to pay them for their time as athletes, some of that money could go toward their college life after sports, hopefully resulting in the athlete getting a useful degree.

A big concern revolving around the athletes getting paid, is the fear that it will affect other students on campus. The biggest concern, is that of how paying athletes would affect other student’s tuition. College athletes getting paid is not going to affect other students on campus tuition. Due to the large sums of money college sports make, the sports programs could afford to pay them. However, what most students do not realize is that some of their tuition, already goes towards athletics in the school. “Research shows that some students don’t even know their fees are already paying for athletics. At Ohio University, for instance, 41% of revenue from the general fee of $531 per quarter for full-time students in 2010 went to intercollegiate athletics, but 54% of students didn’t know it, according to a survey by the nonprofit Center for College Affordability and Productivity, a Washington, D.C. think tank” (Matt Krupnick, Time). People are concerned that their bills would begin to change and that the university would require more out of them. However, they fail to realize that they are already supplying the sports with money. By keeping athletic money in house and having every dollar that is made to go towards athletes and coaches, universities could stop charging as much to normal students for their tuition. Therefore, normal students would end up paying less each year and the athletes would get paid a fair amount to compensate for their daily needs. Also, coaches would still be able to get decent salaries and rather than spending big money to remake a new facility every year, they would wait until it was completely necessary. 

There are many arguments that could be made to avoid paying the athletes. College athletes receive scholarship money and get a free education, payment is unnecessary. The only sports that could afford to pay for the athletes are basketball and football. What about women’s sports, would they get payment too even though they get less attendance? Also, athletes get easier courses and of their choosing. “when colleges begin to pay their student athletes is that other university programs could be cut” (Anderson, Listland). Although these arguments are valid, they are not all completely accurate and fair. The average athlete ends up taking easier courses, yes, but they are doing it because the University is not giving them a scholarship to go to school, they are giving them a scholarship to play a sport. So, coaches make them take easier courses in easier degrees, so that they are less of a liability in the classroom. Allowing them to focus mostly on their sport. However, if the athletes do graduate, which is rare because according to Reed Karaim, “Graduation rates for football and basketball players who enrolled at division 1 schools were lower than the 65 percent for all student athletes” (Karaim, Rampages.us), their degree is practically useless and proves unbeneficial. Also, university sports make enough money that they could stand to give some to other university programs and pay college athletes. It would refer to the salary cap idea that limits the amount each sport could need, setting aside an amount for athletes and coaches as well. Therefore, whatever money is made would go towards facilities and those involved foremost and then the leftover money could go towards helping fund other programs. The leftover money from football and basketball games, could go towards funding other courses and giving them the money they need. Not to mention some of the revenue made from these lower attendance sports could contribute to the money football and basketball make. However, athletes are some of the hardest working students on campus. From working 40-50 hour weeks, many would classify them as employees. Let me ask you a question, would you tell a student working in the school bookstore that you could not pay her? No, because she is bringing in money for the school. So, why should the athlete who brings in millions of dollars not get any compensation? By forming salary caps or letting companies and brands pay the athletes, schools would give athletes the money they have earned. Allowing them to get through school successfully and not go hungry. It is the duty of the universities and the NCAA to take care of the athletes that they rely so heavily on. What they fail to remember is that these athletes are the reason that both parties make as much money as they do. By compensating them, universities will not only be showing their gratitude, but giving athletes their earned cut of the major profit that is brought in every year. Giving these student-athletes the ability to take care of themselves and to help the families that cannot afford schools otherwise. 
