Should College Athletes Be Paid?

A huge debate of today is whether collegiate athletes should be paid.

This question refers to college athletes being paid salaries on top of the
scholarships they have already been granted. As of now, institutions are not
allowed to pay their athletes or give them benefits that are not directly
related to their education or cost of attendance. At some of the most
competitive division one schools, sports teams like football and baseball
have their college athletes practicing for over 40 hours a week. This amount
of work load leads people to question if they are working a full time job. As
long as schools are making money off sports venues and collegiate video
games are being made, the debate on whether college athletes deserve
compensation will never end. Some believe that college athletes should be
treated as professionals, while others believe that athletes are privileged to
get to play sports in college and are lucky to receive scholarships in the first
place.
One side of the argument believes that student athletes should not be
paid and that financial aid should cover costs only related to tuition and room
and board. Students are not professional Athletes is an article that strongly
believes students do not need to be paid. Horace Mitchell believes that
college students should attend school to learn and not for an athletic career.
Horace Mitchell also states It is the students' vehicle to a higher education

degree. This quote says that college sports should not only be about playing
and earning money but a way of getting the opportunity to acquire a good
education. Near the end of his writings, Horace Mitchell discusses the fact
that student athletes do not have the time regular students do to work full or
part time jobs. Student athletes also need to pay for living expenses that are
not covered by scholarships. Although the living costs are not covered by
scholarship, many people such as Horace Mitchell believe that salaries are
still not the solution. A possible solution to this problem could merely be that
the NCAA could increase financial aid to allow student athletes to have funds
that resemble those of working full-time students that are not involved with a
collegiate sport (Horace Mitchell). Although this may be a possible solution,
non-athletes may complain that they dont have the opportunity to make a
salary.
Although division one athletes usually receive a substantial amount of
money toward their education, a lot of money is left unclaimed and unnoticed. Many times collegiate athletes receive their athletic and sometimes
academic scholarships and stop there. Athletes are also able to receive funds
from government organizations such as FAFSA. With todays cost of
attendance (COA), student athletes are going to be receive more money.
COA is the calculated difference between the traditional scholarship (room,
board, books, tuition) and other living expenses (clothing, laundry, insurance,
even a one-time computer expense) (Dennis Dodd). This means that
starting this year, the average student athlete will receive anywhere from

$2000-$5000 per year. Each school is allowed to come up with its own COA
numbers based on how they interpret NCAA and federal guidelines (Dennis
Dodd). This extra aid given to athletes beginning this year can possibly cover
all living costs, eliminating the need for a salary. If money like this is
available to collegiate athletes, the heated argument between the NCAA and
the players may cool off.
The other majority of debaters believe that not only should schools
cover the cost of living for these athletes, predominantly for division one
athletes, but also pay them large salaries on top of that. In todays sports
world, division one athletes are expected to put in as much work on the field
as they do in the classroom. These hours include scheduled conditioning,
weightlifting, actual practice, film review and position training. In Playing
College Football Is a Job, the New York Times Editorial Board stated they
put in up to 50 hours a week preparing for games (New York Times). This
quote is referring to the North Western football team in 2014. Being that
Northwestern has one of the most prominent programs in the country, this
massive amount of practice hours are crucial to staying competitive. Most of
the players on their football team ended up forming a players union. The
players union wanted more from the university and requested more
scholarship funds. In the business world, 50 hours a week is considered to be
a full time job. This article argues that if student athletes work as many
hours as a professional, shouldnt they be compensated? Not only are these
athletes working 50 hours a week but they are still expected to keep a high

grade point average. The New York Times Editorial Board also points out that
if collegiate athletes dont follow team rules and procedures or fail a drug
test, they can lose their scholarship and sometimes be cut from the team.
These rules and penalties closely resemble a professional work contract.
In todays world, college sports are huge. The big division one schools
take in millions of dollar each year and end up with a huge surplus. For
example, last year the athletic programs of Duke University took in 80 million
dollars but ended up with $146,000 in revenue (Maxwell Strachan). This is
just an example of the revenue that is either moved around or spent quickly.
Many coaches of major division one programs make over 6 million dollars a
year such as Mike Krzyzewski of Duke and Nick Saban of Alabama. Critics
argue that if the coach of a major program is making millions of dollars, the
players should be getting a little more of the share.
Just last week, In the case OBannon v NCAA, the three-judge panel of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Wednesday in
an substantial victory for the college sports establishment as it fights efforts
to expand athletes rights (Tracy and Strauss). This article leads on to say
that the NCAA has full authority when it comes to colleges giving their
athletes money towards anything but attendance. This article focuses mainly
on the NCAA regulations and the anti- trust laws. In this recent case, the
court stated that NCAA regulations is not above the antitrust laws (Tracy
and Straus). The Court also said that the NCAA has been too strict when it
comes to maintaining amateurism. The result of this court case is extremely

important because it supports the NCAA in the short run but leaves room for
collegiate athletes to expand their rights and possibly earn more financial aid
and possibly a salary.
The debate on whether collegiate athletes need to be paid a salary is
an ongoing debate that will most likely never end. There is strong evidence
to support both sides of the argument, but it appears that neither one is
strong enough to diminish the other. With the conclusion of the recent legal
case OBannon v NCAA, it looks like college athletes will inch themselves
closer to getting financial aid, but may never reach the point of getting paid
full salaries.

Bibliography:
Mitchell, Horace. "Students Are Not Professional Athletes." Usnews.com. U.S. News, 6 Jan.
2014. Web. 30 Sept. 2015. <http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/01/06/ncaaathletes-should-not-be-paid>.
Dodd, Dennis. "Players about to Get Paid as Money Changes Game in College Athletics."
CBSSports.com. N.p., 27 Feb. 2015. Web. 05 Oct. 2015.

"Playing College Football Is a Job." The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 Mar. 2014.
Web. 30 Sept. 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/opinion/playing-college-football-isa-job.html?_r=0
Strachan, Maxwell. "NCAA Schools Can Absolutely Afford To Pay College Athletes, Economists
Say." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com. Web. 30 Sept. 2015.
Tracy, Marc, and Ben Strauss. "Court Strikes Down Payments to College Athletes." The New
York Times. The New York Times, 30 Sept. 2015. Web. 05 Oct. 2015.