Over the past few years, college athletics in the United States have become more popular, resulting in higher revenues for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and participating colleges. This has sparked a debate on whether college athletes should receive additional compensation in addition to their athletic scholarships. There are advantages to compensating student athletes, such as providing them with more motivation to excel and encouraging a stronger commitment to education. However, there are also drawbacks, including the significant cost of compensating athletes and the complexities of securing funds. It is reasonable for student athletes to be rewarded for their performance and dedication to their sport, which generates millions of dollars annually for schools.
The NCAA earns around $11 billion annually from TV contracts, sponsorships, and the efforts of their athletes (Edelman). It is crucial to allocate some of this revenue to compensate the athletes who play a significant role in the NCAA’s financial success. Student athletes have no job or internship opportunities as they dedicate themselves entirely to training and striving for excellence in their respective sports. Consequently, it is reasonable to question whether student athletes should receive compensation for their involvement in college athletics. The idea of paying college athletes can be traced back to the inaugural intercollegiate competition between Harvard and Yale (Johnson). Football was an extremely violent sport but had a large fan base during the late 1800s. However, there were 45 player fatalities recorded during football games between 1900 and 1905.
This text highlights the involvement of Theodore Roosevelt in addressing the need for modifications to the sport. Following his summoning of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton presidents, the Intercollegiate Athletic Association was established in 1906, eventually becoming the NCAA in 1910. During the early and mid-1900’s, athletes were often recruited and compensated for their participation, sometimes even without being enrolled as students. For instance, a Midwestern university reportedly utilized a team consisting of the town blacksmith, a lawyer, a livery man, and four railroad employees (Johnson).
In 1948, the NCAA implemented the “Sanity Code,” which limited financial aid for athletes to only cover tuition and fees. Additional assistance could be provided based on financial need. However, under pressure from southern schools threatening to leave the NCAA, the code was revised in the 1950s. This revision allowed athletic scholarships that included tuition, fees, and a living stipend.
During the mid-1970s, Title IX was enacted, granting women opportunities to participate in college sports.
Over the past five decades, the NCAA has experienced significant growth. It now consists of three divisions and hosts multiple championship events annually. The organization currently has over 1,300 member institutions and approximately 400,000 student athletes involved in various sports. Mark Emmert (Johnson), president of the NCAA, reports that revenues for fiscal year 2010-2011 reached $757 million with Division I members receiving $452.2 million.
While compensating student athletes does not necessarily require performance-based salaries, alternatives such as increased scholarship funds or job opportunities can be considered. Additionally, providing student athletes with a salary or supplemental stipend is also an option
The issue at hand is determining the financial compensation and monthly allowances for college athletes. These athletes dedicate a significant amount of time and effort to their teams, resulting in the generation of substantial revenue. It is only fair for them to receive a portion of that revenue. This is especially true considering that injuries can cut short athletic careers, even for those who go on to become professionals.
According to Edelman, the NCAA earns approximately $10-11 billion annually from TV contracts, sponsorships, ticket sales, and merchandise profits. In contrast, NCAA coaches earn anywhere from $2-7 million per year, surpassing the salaries of state employees, doctors, or dentists. Therefore, it should not be an issue for the NCAA to allocate funds towards compensating their athletes.
Many student athletes struggle financially due to demanding practice schedules while also trying to maintain grades and socialize with friends during their college years. Unlike traditional students who have more opportunities to earn money because they are not required to spend several hours every day practicing sports.
Student athletes should be compensated for their efforts, to address the inequity some face in receiving full athletic scholarships. According to Bolton, not all student athletes are able to secure such scholarships. A recent NCAA rule mandates a minimum 25% scholarship for each athlete, designating those without any scholarship as walk-ons. Once on the team, athletes must comply with team rules and attend all practices and games. Consequently, it becomes exceedingly arduous for student athletes to find employment or earn any additional income.
One reason why I believe student athletes should be compensated for their athletic involvement is their lack of time for extra activities or jobs. On average, athletes spend around 5-7 hours each day on their sport, sacrificing opportunities to earn money or study. Research shows that student athletes dedicate approximately 43.3 hours per week to their sport, including training, games, travel, and required sessions to remain on the team and keep their scholarship (Anderson). Their schedules are packed with study halls, practices, weight-training sessions, film study, individual workouts, more practice, traveling, and competitions, all in an effort to maintain focus on their sport.
The NCAA generates $11 billion in revenue each year, which is more than what the NBA and NHL combined earn (Anderson). With this substantial amount of money, student athletes should have the opportunity to earn some income (Anderson). It is crucial to understand that their earnings would not be on par with professional athletes. Rather, they would receive enough money to cover living expenses and effectively handle a budget.
Although non-profit organizations have the potential to generate significant revenue, it appears that this wealth is often concentrated among certain key members, particularly the players. Each year, top coaches receive high salaries ranging from six to seven figures, despite not being primarily responsible for fan support. Conversely, it is typically the players who attract the largest number of fans. While parents, students, and fans are not interested in obtaining prime season tickets to watch executives participate in sports, these same executives are compensated with million-dollar incomes by the NCAA. Fans are invested in players who can be likened to well-known professional athletes. Moreover, providing student athletes with payment during their college years would offer them an opportunity to acquire budgeting and money-saving skills that are crucial for individuals (Anderson).
If someone cannot manage their finances, they will not have enough money when they are older and in greater need. Instead, it will be wasted on unnecessary and unimportant things. Teaching budgeting effectively would greatly help many student athletes, and they would apply it throughout their lives. Saving money is also a valuable skill for student athletes, as it would be utilized daily.
Teaching student athletes the value of saving money can have long-term advantages as it enables them to accumulate more funds currently and in the future. If these athletes were provided with a modest salary, they would be able to acquire crucial financial skills. Furthermore, having a salary would grant them the freedom to make mistakes without facing complete loss. With their limited income, athletes would not be at risk of wasting all their money or making unwise financial decisions. This gives them an opportunity for a new beginning in acquiring budgeting and money management skills before completing college.
The provision of this opportunity to student athletes will greatly enhance their college experience, as it is a skill that every individual should possess. While many student athletes aspire to play professionally in their respective sports, the majority of NCAA athletes do not achieve this goal for various reasons such as inadequacy, injuries, and personal circumstances.
Injuries can be a valid reason for compensating student athletes. For example, if a senior athlete tears their ACL and requires surgery, professional teams are unlikely to consider recruiting them due to the possibility that they may never be able to play again. In such cases, I firmly believe that the athlete should be eligible for some form of compensation for their injury.
There are differing viewpoints on paying college student athletes, as some argue they already have more opportunities than other students. However, it is important to recognize the financial challenges these athletes face and the risks they encounter while playing. Compensating them not only helps in their recovery but also provides them with a source of income to complete their degree.
There is a popular belief that student athletes should prioritize their education as it will ultimately be beneficial for them. However, it is crucial to acknowledge the challenges they face in balancing academics with being part of an athletics team. Many traditional students fail to realize the considerable time commitment required for sports. Nonetheless, there are also valid arguments against compensating athletes.
It is a common argument that student athletes should not receive payment due to potential frivolous spending. They often partake in similar wild behaviors as other college students, although opinions on this differ. Another argument against paying student athletes is the importance of prioritizing education over athletics. Nevertheless, many believe that being a member of a sports team enhances the overall college experience.
In today’s world, a college education holds immense importance as it significantly impacts job prospects. This is especially crucial for students who lack a college degree and struggle to secure employment. The significance of student athletes prioritizing education is a key factor that motivated their decision to attend college. Moreover, the inability of most colleges to financially compensate their athletes is another reason for this stance (Anderson). While colleges accumulate substantial funds through tuitions, scholarships, and donors, some smaller institutions cannot afford to pay their athletes. Thus, these colleges prefer to allocate resources towards benefiting the entire student population rather than solely focusing on athletes, which is understandable.
There are two main reasons why student athletes should not receive payment. Firstly, it is widely acknowledged that there is no fair method for distributing payment to each athlete (Anderson). Despite various attempts, no successful solution has been found to address this issue. Secondly, student athletes are not professionals and therefore do not warrant monetary compensation (Anderson). Professionals earn their title through extensive training and preparation dedicated solely to their sport. While professionals deserve reasonable payment for their efforts, college students face far more responsibilities and cannot devote the same amount of time as professionals. Consequently, they lack the necessary commitment to be considered professional athletes. Additionally, college students need future prospects beyond their athletic careers, making financial payment less necessary for them.
