A Controversy Over The Issue of Paying College Athletes

There is a great misrepresentation of the tremendous impact on collegiate level sports and their athletes have on the overall success of a university. This is especially true in SUNY University settings, in which considerable funding is poured into collegiate level athletic programs, to produce athletic excellence. However, the problem lies in the true motivation for this considerable spending, which its overall purpose is to produce a team that can be profited via cable television and professional scouting. Yet, due to the strict excellence that is required of these athletes, many universities are still reluctant to devise a wage to its athletes, that in many ways, shares the same responsibilities as a pro athlete with an annual salary. It is due to this, that so many students in these situations are now refusing to accept only scholarships or financial aid, but now a real paid wage, for their athletic ability, and the value that they bring their organization.

To many individuals, the idea of a paid wage to college athletes may seem utterly ridiculous, and on the surface for good reason. It is often common knowledge that student-athletes receive tremendous benefits from their institutions, such as, but not limited to full-ride scholarships, free housing, and even complimentary meals. It is due to these tremendous benefits, that any rational person may find it hard to wrap their heads around the idea of adding a paid wage to the long list of benefits. Yet, contrary to this argument is the substantial popularity of the college football season in the US, which is met with a massive season of games captivating the attention of fans nationwide. This level of attention given to college sports in the United States can match the excitement and fanbase of their professional league counterparts. These collegiate level events, not only attract massive crowds (said to even go up to 100,000), they are also televised, followed by hundreds of thousands of dedicated fans; while also receiving endless scrutinization and publication in newspaper columns and sports radio shows. Barstool Sports, being one of the best examples, is a satirical sports and college life news outlet, that closely monitors and reports on college athletics.

Even more fascinating is the fact that many student-athletes at this tremendous level are also balancing entire full time student curriculums of which consume the entirety of their time, making the possibility to work, entirely out of the question. To many, students, this may seem relatively inhuman, as such student-athletes will not even have the time to work for income to use outside of sports and academic life. This represents a complete injustice to the students who make televised sporting appearances a reality for the institution. To make matters worse, there is no inability to pay these students either, due to the remarkably high level of intensity and interest in college sports such as football and basketball. Similarly, this means the NCAA, the main non-profit organization responsible for managing collegiate level competitions, is swimming in the profits of the ability of student-athletes comprising the organization. According to CNN, this is further supported by the revealed revenues from broadcasting rights and ticket sales producing an estimated value somewhere around $3 billion dollars in 2014.

Fascinatingly, none of this income finds its way to the athletes themselves; by contrast and to very little surprise, college coaches and NCAA employees’ salaries aren’t capped.

This paper also isn’t the first call to action concerning the debate on whether student-athletes should be paid as it is a commonly debated issue, with some individuals referencing that collegiate-level sport should be considered and treated as an amateur enterprise. However, similar to what was already discussed, many individuals still choose to ignore the fact that collegiate level sports attract large amounts of attention and financial investment; however, many wonders where college athletics draws the line to playing sports at school or a university elsewhere in the world. Due to this, such individuals argue that being part of a collegiate sports team is seen as part of the education these students are paying their fees for, rather than as a semi-professional job or a career. However, the problem with individuals taking this view is the fact that they ignore the increasingly expensive cost to attend such universities. This is a result of the common misconception that collegiate all athletes graduate debt-free or studied on a full financial scholarship.

In many cases, particularly among students who don’t have the ability to participate professionally after college, many of these student-athletes are struggling financially. Similarly, a majority of the athletes that make up the NCAA come from disadvantaged, African-American, inner-city families, these impoverished families are unfortunately left to rely upon loans to cover essential costs such as room and board. As such, serious injury or a loss of composure could be the difference between a professional sports career and a lifetime in serious debt. It is an apparent fact that the racial divide is a major factor that is compelling for students to demand financial compensation for their services and skills. Consequently, the increasing revenue of the NCAA creating additional pressure to pay student-athletes.

In 2016, NFL player Michael Bennett made a statement speaking on the injustices on the student-athletes to ESPN stating: “Hell yeah college players should get paid. NCAA gets paid. Rose Bowl gets paid. Everybody gets paid except the people making the product. In some countries, they call that slavery.” While the comment made wasn’t directly related to any race, it did speak volumes to the neglect and misrepresentation of college athletes and unfair compensation for their contribution. As already referenced, African-American athletes make up a majority of the athletes that represent the NCAA and do to the marginalization of society, many are disproportionately affected by the decision not to pay student-athletes. This is further supported by a public poll taken to gauge public support that is in favor of paying college athletes. However, the poll revealed that while there is still a large presence in favor of paying student-athletes, many more African-American individuals supported the idea, while 43% of white respondents were opposed.

Not long after another study revealed that “negative racial views about blacks was the single strongest predictor of white opposition to paying athletes”. As such, racial prejudice was deemed a stronger predictor than age, experience, political affiliation, social class. This represents a critical and necessary awakening that the reluctance to fairly compensate college athletes is an immediate injustice, that impedes the academic and social progress of higher education in the United States. Tatishe Nteta, a professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and one of the study’s authors, further elaborated on the study’s results, stating that the foundation of the NCAA is inherently still very prejudice towards minority representation within its own organization. As such, this prejudice is impeding the progression of true equality and fair representation for student-athletes, as a result of marginalization from the organization itself.

The fact is that student-athletes should be receiving a designated salary that is proportionally based on the skills such individuals bring to the organization. There is no reasonable nor valid opposition as to why student-athletes at the collegiate level shouldn’t be paid for their participation. The collegiate level sporting scene is one of the most successful industries throughout the world, and it is still growing. As a result, such factors only serve to promote that college athletes should have similar financial opportunities as their professional counterparts. Similarly, the main argument made to justify the lack of pay for college athletes is the lack of professional certification, which isn’t deserving of wage. While the argument is based within narrow logic, it doesn’t stand to defend the apparent greed of the NCAA of which nets tremendous income from marketing the skills and showmanship of student-athletes and use it to their own benefit.

Many individuals would be baffled to find out that increasing the amount of money being made from marketing college sports each year makes it tremendously harder for organizations to refuse the payment of their players. This can be further supported through a (Gregory 2018) Time article by sports writer Sean Gregory, speaking on the eleven-million dollar salary of Nick Saban, the head coach of the Alabama Crimson Tide Football team, made $11 million this past season, and assistant coaches netting over one million dollar salaries. Such statistics, make it hard for any individual to not agree to pay players, even when factoring in scholarships and exclusive privileges; however, it is not adequate considering the time, physical, and emotional commitment each player is required to give to their team. Furthermore, these benefits also aren’t representative of the physical risk to each player of which could eventually be a career-ending injury at any moment while playing. The loose safety regulation of each sport alone is enough incentive for players to receive revenue of some kind for their sacrifices for their schools.

In a 2011 NCAA Survey, it was stated that student-athletes average at least thirty hours of practice in a single week, while others can even approach forty or more. As stated earlier in the paper, with a combination of tremendous course work, and the expectation to practice as consistently as a full-time job, the ability to find any free time to work for income is virtually impossible. These requirements often quickly transpire into restrictions which is often doing more harm than good. There is no ground behind the lack of support for college athletes, as individuals on academics rather than sports scholarships are still presented free tuition, as well as, room and board; however, academic scholarship recipients often have the luxury of free time, in which they can feasibly have time to work as well.

As such, tremendous changes are necessary to allow future success for NCAA athletes, a first step being the ability for athletes to sign endorsement deals with brands like Nike and Adidas. Allowing, sponsors to come in and offer financial aid to athletes would be an enormous leap forward, while also benefiting both the players and companies. There are numerous examples of successful relationships between amateurs in any respect and sponsorship deals, with mutual benefit for both parties. In sports specifically, major shoe manufacturers have been seen consistently offering incentives to college athletes and/or even family members, as a way to get them to attend certain popular universities. Establishing a path of legal freedom for students to establish brand endorsement deals with companies would aid in weakening the crippling poverty caused by the growing cost of education.

To this end, by reforming the inequality of college athletes by allowing them so similarly market themselves for brand association and sponsorship, many students may be more likely to stay in school until they graduate, while also allowing student-athletes with tremendous success to gain financial success, which in turn would allow such students to support their families struggling for them to succeed. With the current situation for student-athletes in the NCAA, there is no foreseeable downside to allowing students legal freedom for financial ventures. Another article from ESPN which indirectly supports the need for change.

The article goes on to state that while early resentment and opposition of paying student-athletes may have initially made sense with the scholarships and benefits, the instability for the NCAA to offer compensation is becoming increasingly hard to defend. This is shown through the news of a successful contract between the NCAA and Time Warner Cable with a total dollar estimate of $10.8 billion dollars. The article states that while it wouldn’t be in anyone’s best interest to distribute the funds equally or even pay every college athlete. However, what can be done is to establish outlets for successful student-athletes to earn a wage throughout their duration with a school, and open the possibility of co-operating brand sponsorships.

For many individuals, landing an athletic scholarship can be the key to unlocking their dream of creating a better life for themselves and their families. As the NCAA is now, for many individuals, these dreams can transition into living nightmares, especially when having to follow the harsh restrictions of the NCAA, as they oversee all athletic scholarships. Under the current education law, student-athletes are prohibited from making personal financial gains during the course of their scholarship. To make matters worse, the recipients are often from already struggling families, of which such families are required to cover the necessary expenses for student life to even be possible. Even more infuriating, is the allowance of any college or university to collect tremendous income from college sports using the names, images, and skills of their players for personal gain.

There are many examples of universities thriving off of the success of their athletic programs, in which Syracuse University’s athletic department set a record for $90 million in revenue during 2016-2017. What is more staggering is that Syracuse wasn’t the only school, The University of Alabama’s athletic income from 2013 from all sports collected a total of about $143 million. With a greater income than the entire National Hockey League team revenues and 25 out of the 30 NBA team revenues for that year. As such, another outlet for immediate change and representation of such a large portion of the academic system would be taking necessary legal action in reforming the current education laws prohibiting students from being able to financially benefit from themselves.

Similarly, legislative representation and protection of students should become an immediate priority, by setting a required standard of treatment and representation for an athlete’s ability to self-represent within their school athletic organization. Allowing for the protection of such changes would fundamentally lay the groundwork for an increase in exposure and opportunity for the schools and their athletes as well. This can be supported through the overall immense popularity of college-level athletics, of which for much younger and developing athletes, is an extremely influential part of their selection process. As a result, a logical decision would be to increase the rate of promotion of popular college athletes and other successful programs, by allowing their athletes to promote their school and organization themselves.

Thus, the basis to pay college-athletes a salary based on the analyzation of journals and articles related to the subject, reveals the complexity of the issue, which has been created through a history of prejudice leadership in the NCAA; as well as, the injustices of the academic institutions and impoverished backgrounds that student-athletes come from. Furthermore, the inability of the individual power of student-athletes, combined with a lack of personal legislative representation is only the basis of outdated policies that continue to hinder and diminish the lives of student-athletes. These policies continue to drive considerable market-shares and tremendous revenue into the pockets of the NCAA and its leaders, while refusing to share such extraordinary wealth to the foundation that has built and continues to sustain the organization. As such, legal representation for these student-athletes, and the rights to self-represent and market themselves is a crucial step in ensuring future success and equality from the NCAA; as well as, ensuring a fruitful and supportive future for those who continue to come next.