A controversial topic surrounding many universities is the issue of whether or not student-athletes should be paid. Student athletes work hard not only on their school work, but also at each and every practice, game, and training session. They spend great amounts of time every day balancing all of these activities, which begs the question, is the sport they are playing equivalent to the time and effort put into a job? Though this topic may seem like a simple yes or no issue, it is much more complex. In reality, this topic involves moral, logistical, legal, and financial issues that often lead to key players with their hands tied.
Morally, most people can agree that student athletes should receive some sort of compensation for their commitment to their sports. The real questions are: What form of compensation should they receive? How much should they receive? What would “payment” look like for different sports, genders, players, etc…? Payment in the form of a salary is not the answer for these student athletes. When you think of who these athletes actually are, they are around 18 -22 years old. Most 18 year olds could not manage a multi-thousand or even million dollar salary. This could lead to putting students in a position where they cannot manage the wealth they receive. Studies show that only 39% of college students budget their money (CNN Money). “Giving a young student access to money with no limitations will lead to irresponsible and self-destructive decisions” (Anderson). After running the numbers, Time Magazine found students would actually make close to nothing from payment after they pay for the expenses the school pays for for them. For example, after all of the taxes, trainer and sports expenses, food, housing, and tuition are taken out, the athlete would end up with about $100. “But since it’s a salary, not a scholarship, it is subject to federal and state income taxes. Tuition and college expenses would not be deductible because the income level surpasses the IRS eligibility limit.” (Thelin) A better solution for a form of compensation might be tuition, training, sport expenses, housing, and a meal plan.
The next question raised for the morality behind paying athletes is how much compensation should individuals receive. Daniel Roberts, a Fortune contributor, argues “In almost all cases, one or two sports dominate the merchandise, ticket sales, and publicity at any college—usually football, men’s basketball, and women’s basketball. In those situations, it’s a stretch to say that the guys on the rugby team are owed the same money as the football players.” Though these athletes all work hard and put in relative amounts of training and effort, it would make sense to pay the basketball and football players more as they are bringing in most of the athletic publicity. This raises the question; Is it fair to pay based off the sport’s and player’s publicity, as it is a factor out of the athletes’ control? It does not feel fair to allow some players to make millions and others to make a few thousand, while both work (relatively) as hard as one another. This solution would not solve the issue that many people have with not paying athletes, which is that because they work as if this was their job, they should be paid as such. It also raises issues within the individual sports on who should be paid more. Should a bench player and a star player be paid the same, as both are training and on the team but one receives more play time? This also brings into question Title 9 which guarantees “"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." (US Government). If mens sports bring in more money and publicity than women's’, and you choose to pay them accordingly, then you violate Title 9, and provide unfair working conditions based on athletes’ gender.
Logistically, it is close to impossible to actually pay student athletes. First off, universities would have to recognize athletes as employees. The title of employees comes with much more than just payment. It also entails that these students be required to pay taxes, have the ability to unionize, and receive benefits. According to Shatter the Lens, an online debate and news publication, “If these athletes are considered employees, then they will be entitled to minimum wage, compensation, and other legal remedies. To recognize these student-athletes as employees, it would be nearly impossible to compensate them fairly because these students work around the clock. The implications would mean that not only would minimum wage come into play, but so would overtime, leading to unjust or unfair payment arguments being raised. Forbes Magazine states “courts could imply an employer-employee relationship and expose these universities to liability for workers compensation.” This would meant that students are required to work a certain amount of hours per week, be subject to repercussions for performance, and could even be “fired”.
The greatest legal implication of paying student athletes to be addressed would be paying men and women. Paying players could result in discrimination under Title IX (200). Title IX necessitates equal opportunities for male and female sports, but fails to require equal payments to athletes in a system of pay-for-play. This could result in discrimination against female athletes. According to Geoff Griffin from the Greenhaven Press, “Paying male student athletes more than female student-athletes could possibly be construed as discrimination…[which could] cut off federal funding of colleges if those colleges discriminated on the basis of sex.” Additionally, CBS Sports states that, “Title IX says nothing about the issues of compensation…Mens and womens sports would have the same opportunities, except in men’s sports, the schools would be free to treat the athletes more fairly given the revenue being generated.” This potential scenario not only would result in unequal payment, but also turns Title IX against the very women it is supposed to protect. The potential impact would be an attempt to provide compensation to all NCAA student athletes would pose significant problems for the NCAA and the college sports themselves, as well as contribute to gender inequality in athletics.
Another hard issue to solve issue surrounding how to actually put a payment plan in place is what athletes should be paid if they are to be paid. USA Today states “…only a few sports tend to bring in money. Often, it is the big programs – football and basketball – that bring in the most revenue. Other programs don’t make any money while some even tend to lose money.” Additionally, “it’s not clear who would be paid what.” (USA Today). You would have to decide as an employer if you base pay off performance, a set salary/ scale, etc. By paying athletes varying amounts, you also open yourself up to various legal repercussions. Some might argue “How do you measure effort or talent”, or “I work harder than those athletes, why is so and so being paid more?”
The financial component of this issue is undoubtedly the most controversial component of the issue. Morally, most people believe that student athletes should indeed be compensated. Legally, the issues are relatively black and white: there are too many legalities involved that would cause upheaval among student athletes, as the payment would not be fair and equal across the board. But the financial implications include affecting and even hurting non-athletes. By paying athletes, schools could not give out as many scholarships as they do, to athletes and non athletes. The school uses much of the money generated from athletics to offer scholarships to all kinds of students, so if athletes were paid it would not only negatively affect other students, but themselves. “But since it’s a salary, not a scholarship, it is subject to federal and state income taxes. Tuition and college expenses would not be deductible because the income level surpasses the IRS eligibility limit.”(Thelin) This means that students would not get a scholarship for school, but just a salary. Because many athletes are only able to go to school because of these academic scholarships, paying them would actually hurt them. Many believe these scholarships should be considered as payment, as in some cases, it is a free ride to school. Forbes reports “the 170,000 athletes who play Division I sports are the beneficiaries of the nation’s second largest college financial aid program”. The average student, according to US News, “the average athletic student is awarded 10,400 dollars in athletic scholarship but it can also be much higher, sometimes amounting to a full ride. These scholarships can be used to pay for tuition, board and other approved extraneous expenses. Said scholarships would greatly diminish if colleges were required to pay their student athletes.”
A pro- paid argument centers around the idea that because student athletes spend so much time on their sports, they actually spend more time working then they would at a job. It actually is so much time that it inhibits them from having a job and even spending time on academics at times.