Ncaa and The Payment of College Athletes

As college athletics grows and continues to bring large financial gain to universities and corporate sponsors, the debate over paying college athletes continues to grow. But while the debate between supporters and opponents increases across the country, the college athletics governing body has not acted on the matter. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has a tight set of rules to help maintain a players amateur status. These rules prohibit payment to student-athletes The other side of the coin is just as unfortunate. Under NCAA rules, any player who is on athletic scholarship is forbidden from having a full-time or part-time job. The college athletic organization is quickly becoming a multi-million dollar a year industry. Because of this fact, there are many people that feel college athletes should obtain a small salary or wage for their services. At the same time, there or just as many people who disagree and say that they are receiving pay through their scholarships. The duration of this paper will investigate the dilemma that faces many American colleges To Pay or not to Pay.

That is my question for you. That is also the question that thousands of student-athletes are wondering about each year. Although the NCAA passed legislation in 1998 allowing athletes to work on a restricted basis, many cannot afford something as simple as a new outfit because of the sportsrelated time constraints they face. The NCAA has set its income level for athletes at $1500 a year. That is only $125 a month. This may not seem like an outrageous figure considering their education is completely paid for, but many athletes come from broken homes. Because of this they cannot afford the luxuries that may have been afforded them otherwise.

Another huge factor in the argument for payment is the huge television deals that are being signed by teams for the right to broadcast a game. CBS holds an eight-year, $1.725 billion contract to broadcast March Madness, but the athletes responsible for generating the money do not see a dime of it. As the money generated by NCAA sports continues to fill the pockets of its profit oriented directors, the simmering debate over whether athletes should be compensated for the revenue they produce has risen to a new high. This debate will continue to catch the attention of the American people as long as cash-strapped athletes struggle to fit work time into an already insanely busy schedule. A full athletic scholarship does cover the cost of most basic living provisions. The scholar athlete’s schooling is paid for but that can only do so much. The schooling is paid for because of prior talent that was displayed in high school, and many feel the athlete should be paid for playing in the in the next level of sports, cuestan samme probe.

Others feel that athletes should be paid at the collegiate level, but that the collegiate level should be a whole new league of its own. Murray Sperber, an author in our text, believes that the top level of college athletics should be reserved as a sort of minor league system to the professional level. He feels that the end is inevitable for college sports as we know them. Soon the top athletes, at the top colleges, will receive a cut from the profit barrel. If a school is not with the program of paying its athletes, than they can continue their play at a lower level, division Il or Ill. At the same time, if a college wants to fight playing at a lower level, Sperber feels we should let them compete. Of course the athletes at the non-paying colleges will not stay at the school for long and the new system will work itself out. This idea of a new collegiate system is something that has been examined and reexamined by many authorities on the subject of compensation for athletes. This would change amateur sports as we know them, but at the same time offer payment to athletes that are going to exit school early as it is and create an effective minor league system too many of our favorite American pastimes.

In addition to determining an equal payment formula, other issues will soon arise. One such issue is whether to only pay those athletes competing in traditional high revenue sports, such as football and mens basketball. The other would be to divide moneys equally among all athletes. The proposition of paying college athletes also raises questions concerning workers compensation, labor law issues and antitrust concerns. If a school begins paying its athletes then they are considered by law to be employees of that organization. By having athlete-employees this creates issues of disability payments, insurance, vacation, and many other work related payment issuestion, and many athlete-emploveen they are conside.

While many argue for the payment of student-athletes, there is a group of people that are against changing the system that we have in place today. These advocates say that only a few college athletic programs actually turn a profit throughout the year. They say that less than 50 percent of the schools involved in athletics actually turn a profit. Many other people believe this number to be much lower, the number looks higher to try and save many dwindling college athletic programs.

Another big discussion has begun to surface in reference to paying college athletes. This concern lies in the success of other collegiate sports. With the payment of college football and basketball players, assuming they would receive the bulk of the revenue, this would limit a schools ability to subsidize other sports at that school. The bottom line is quite simple. Revenue for other sports, particularly womens athletics, may not be sufficient to continue the program. The reason womens athletics was singled out by the activists was because we are assuming that most womens sports do not receive the attention or fan base that a mens program may acquire. Of course this is not true with every university, but statistics leads us to believe that it is the case with most campuses.

The schools would also need to discuss how the athletes are paid. This area actually can be broken down into two categories. The area deals with how much to pay athletes, and the second area is how the athletes salaries will be funded. How much to pay a college athlete is very important. The questions of amount and tenure have also been broached. Do you pay your star athlete the most money or do you pay your fifth year senior who raises the competition level of your whole team the most? What if a star freshman has a bad sophomore season do you cut his pay, or do you fire him to bring on a new recruit you have just traded for? How do you stop a player from wanting to play on a higher paying team? The only true answer lies in equal payment to all. Nut again the questions arise. Should a red-shirt freshman lacrosse player receive the same amount of money as a senior who leads the conference in points per game?

The second part to the problem lies in the area of funding the payments. Does the NCAA cut into its expense account and fork over the money needed for such a bold move? if it is alumni funded and school ticket revenue funded then powerhouses like Duke and UNC would of course continue to be dominant. They could accomplish this because ticket sales are high and alumni are not only rich, but lengthy in the number of years of support at a school like Duke. Football dynasties like Florida State, Miami, Florida, Ohio State, and Michigan would continue to thrive, but would a new program like USF be able to get off the ground? Even if they could begin a good program, would they ever be able to acquire the kind of talent needed to progress to the next level?

The final argument made against paying athletes is probably the most important to our society. In a world where money is everything and power directs the country, could a misjudged athlete survive without a degree? The point is simple, if we began to pay our college athletes, we need to do it in a way where they can survive and many of them can help support their families. The money needs to be incentive enough to continue their education, get their degree, and still survive while they are at school. The current system that we have set in place basically encourages kids, ready or not, to progress to the next level. Many of our athletes come from broken homes and are poorer than their student counterparts. Because we pay them nothing they are encouraged to step up to the next level to survive. If a system is in place to help our athletes while in school, many of them may stay until they have their degree. This would help out not only our society as we see it today but the future careers of many student athletes.

Cite this page