Should College Athletes Get Paid or Not
Should College Athletes Get Paid or Not
One of the most controversial debates in United States sports underlies the issue of whether or not college athletes should be compensated for play as is the case with professional athletes. Richter from the Statista research company described college sports, especially American football and basketball, in the United States as a Billion-dollar game. This is because the university sports usually generate billions of US dollars in the form of TV deals, endorsement deals, ticket sales, and sponsorships. Richter pointed out that in 2019 alone, university sports generated up to USD 18.91 billion. The sad part in all this is that basketball and football coaches rake in millions of dollars every year while athletes without whom this would be impossible are left with nothing but the amateur title. The essay explores this debate and argues that college athletes should receive compensation for play by exploring the pros having such policies in place and any relevant opposing views on the same.
Discussion
Proponents for having college athletes compensated stems from the notion that American universities are exploiting athletes partisan in college sports for billions of dollars at the expense of the student’s education, health, and safety. Richter found that in 2019, college sports raked in USD 18.91 billion from student fees ($1.55 billion), Ticket sales ($2.01 billion), institutional grants and government support ($6.85 billion), guarantee revenues ($0.30 billion), royalties, licensing and advertising ($1.10 billion), donor contributions and endorsements ($2.87 billion), and media rights ($3.44 billion) as well as, and other miscellaneous revenues amounting to $0.79 billion (Richter).
The beginning of this exploitation dates back to a 1984 university football when the University of Boston defeated defending champions University of Miami in a dramatic last minute touchdown with millions watching live or on TV. After this win, the enrollment rate in the University of Boston increased by 30% which showed other universities the marketing importance of building a strong sports program (Ted ex talks). The Supreme Court decision in the same year that overturned the restrictions to the number of football games that could be aired on television further reinforced this since schools could now make more money by televising games and market their universities globally. The Supreme Court decision was the game changer and universities saw the opportunity to make millions by prioritizing sports over education and sports wins over the health and safety of the students.
Proponents of this debate argue that the only way to make this worthwhile for the student was compensating them for the apparent losses as is the case with professional athletes. Otherwise, this would be another example of neo-slavery where universities reap millions from the sweat and struggle of athletes. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) only provides scholarships to college students, which are sometimes not enough to cover the cost of school and other student needs. While this was increased to some part following a lawsuit, the hardships faced by college athletes while they try to make end meets is far above what the NCAA can fathom. The NCAA rules forbid students from not getting paid and not profiting in any way from their name or likeness.
In my view, this abhorrent and inhumane and should be abolished. In addition to the unfair profit made by exploiting athletes, universities should consider paying them because they are placing their bodies, careers, health, education and other potential earning streams in jeopardy. Next, college athletes as well as their families are mostly poor. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research showed that 25 percent of college athletes were food poor with an additional 14 percent being homeless (Craig et al.). Most also lived some $778 below the federal poverty line and owed an average of $3624 in college tuition fees.
Opponents of compensating college athletes argue that allowing students to be paid would tip the balance between athletics and education towards the athletics side. But even so, athletics is dependent on individual talent, which is restricted to only a few students, thereby defeating this argument as not all students can claim prowess in athletics of any form and so most would still enroll in college not for monetary gain but for education as is purposed. In other words there can be no argument to support this unfair exploitation of college athletes. Nevertheless, as I conclude, some states are beginning to see this unfairness and already 6 states have already implemented laws that support some form of athlete compensation. Most importantly the Bipartisan Congressional Coalition have shown their support to athlete compensation by allowing them to earn money from endorsements (Radnofsky). Based on an AP-NORC poll, two thirds of Americans also agree with this move (Russo). The NACC should consider the changing trends and views by the public and allow athletes to be compensated.
References
Radnofsky, Louise. “Democrats and Republicans have found one common foe: the NCAA.” The Wall Street Journal. (2020). Available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-and-republicans-have-found-one-common-foe-the-ncaa-11578049200
Richter, Felix. “U.S. college sports are a billion-dollar game” Statista. (2021). Available at https://www.statista.com/chart/25236/ncaa-athletic-department-revenue/
Russo, Ralph.” AP-NORC poll: 66% favor endorsement money for NCAA athletes.” (2020). Available at https://apnews.com/article/hispanics-ap-top-news-in-state-wire-sports-general-basketball-3ab2b10f53e2c7f6a16b25ccaf49eb1a
TED ex talks. “The Exploitation of College Athletes.” YouTube video file. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm78fSqbdYA
Craig Garthwaite, Keener, Jordan et al. “Who Profits from Amateurism? Rent-Sharing in Modern College Sports.” (2020). Available at https://www.nber.org/papers/w27734