According to the NCAA, more than 150,000 college athletes receive $2.7 billion in athletic scholarships each year. They also are compensated in other ways benefiting their education. So why should they be paid? They shouldn’t. College athletes should not be paid because that will minimize fund for other university programs, also making them employees instead of students and mainly they are already compensated with a free education including benefits.
The debate over whether or not college athletes should be paid has been an ongoing, controversial topic over the past 20 years. The craze over college basketball and football specifically, has grown over the years also. These student athletes are used to advertise the school, creating huge revenue for the schools and also television. The NCAA football tournaments and March Madness tournament has grown the fan base for these sports enormously. Because of the money being made off these student athletes, there has been a desire for them to be compensated in ways other than scholarships.
Even though these students are already compensated with a free education including benefits, many believe that these funds are not enough to cover all of a college student needs. In the article “Should college athletes be paid?”, Majerol states “Still, the average full-scholarship athlete accumulates $3.200 in debt for each year they’re in school…”. The argument here is that the students should be paid along with being given a free education because the scholarship funds are not enough. Edelman argues that the amount of time the athletes sacrifice for the school does not justify the absence of pay (Edelman). The amount of time each of the athletes have to put into games and practices refrains them from being able to have a side job to cover other expenses. This leaves them in these “starving” conditions.
Through the huge amount of television revenue, the schools, coaches, and NCAA all get paid. Nocera argues that with college sports being affluent businesses, the coaches and schools benefit off the large amounts of funds generated off the athletes who get no part in the wealth(NOCERA). The main component that generates the fan bases that feed in the money are who get the least amount after everything is said and done. The thin line between amateur and professional sports is only kept if the collegiate athletes are not compensated in ways other than scholarships. The argument here is that because the athletes are used to generate the funds given to universities and their athletic faculty, the athletes themselves should be compensated also.
Relating to the fact that the main contributors to college sports, the athletes themselves, are who get the least benefits. Without the athletes there would be no March Madness or NCAA football bowl games that generate so much revenue. Cooper argues that under federal labor laws athletes are considered employees (Cooper). It is reasonable to understand that the athletes are the reason these schools acquire these enormous amounts of money. If it wasn’t for them, college sports wouldn’t exist (Birkenes). The argument given is that the athletes put in more than they receive. Unless the athlete is given publicity that they may use to be compensated outside the school, the athlete gets nothing from what they do for the school.
The main benefit of a student athlete is the compensation of a free education while getting to play the sport they love. Beyond the free education, scholarships include other benefits as well. In the article “Fair play: should college athletes get paid?”, the author includes,
Many student athletes are already compensated, says Rick Burton, a sports management professor at Syracuse University in New York. "Many top players receive tuition, books, tutoring, housing, meals, clothing, elite coaching, medical care, travel expenses, and career counseling," he tells JS. "At some schools, the value of those benefits during four years of college might exceed $250,000." (Zissou)
When I say they are given a free education including benefits, this is what I mean. A normal student at a university that is not an athlete would have to pay for these services out of their pocket. Other than an education, these athletes get catered to. Specifically, college football and basketball athletes receive different treatment than other athletes and of course other students.
Universities have multiple programs that their funds spread to keep them running. The athletic program, being one of the biggest programs at most universities, brings in the most funds among all programs. Because college athletes are not paid it allows the university to have more funding available to do other things. If these student athletes were to be paid, the funding for other programs will be minimized. In the article “Pay to Play: Should College Athletes Be Paid?”, the author states “Paying college athletes would take money away from college budgets that could be used to invest in research, to hire better staff, or to renovate facilities and technology.”. Therefore, leaving college athletes to only be compensated with an education and the benefits that come with it will benefit the school. With academics being the main focus of universities, that should be the only thing they invest more into.
Along with the funding being minimized, paying these student athletes will make them more like employees than students. The faculty is who the university pays and paying the student athletes will make them a part of the faculty also. When student athletes begin to be paid for their performance they will start to focus more on perfecting their athletic abilities more than the education that they are there to get. Berry argues that, with students already receiving compensation for their participation it is just as if they were any other student on campus. Many would say that they are student athletes, not employee athletes (Berry III). The reason for universities is for individuals to study and learn to strengthen their education. Therefore, the student athletes focus should not be on how much their getting paid when the reason for them being in school is to study. Athletics in college are just an added incentive allowing students to have various opportunities.
Many believe college athletes should be paid because scholarship fund doesn’t cover all needs of a college student and because it is their hard work that keeps the college athletics existing. It is argued that college athletes should not be paid because they are compensated with a free education including benefits and paying them will minimize funding for other university programs also making them employees. Of course student athletes spend majority of their time at games and practices which refrains them from being able to get a job to cover extra expenses, although the scholarship they are given includes multiple benefits which should help cover those extra expenses. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that the compensation given to these student athletes plus the included benefits is their form of being paid by the university for their efforts.
A universities main purpose is and should be to provide a secondary education to those who chose to receive it to better their knowledge and future successes. Inferred by the awareness of the topic of this paper, universities have lost their focus on education and geared more to being a business focused on just making money. The college sports recent increase in attention to the public can be considered the cause of this. This question will be asked more and more as the thin line between collegiate sports and professional sports begins to weaken. These athletes put more and more work into their craft and as they do this their focus is shifting further away from the main purpose of the university. The purpose of an athletic scholarship need to be reinforced among college athletes allowing them to understand that the athletic program was created to give students opportunities outside the academic field rather than for them to make a living off of.