Reflecting on the Shame of College Sports: Should NCAA Div 1 Basketball and Football players get paid?

The debate over whether college athletes should be paid has gone on and will go on for years. There is reasoning supporting both sides of the argument. According to the USNews article "Should NCAA athletes be paid?", the NCAA makes roughly $6 billion annually (http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-ncaa-athletes-be-paid). Between ticket sales, merchandise, and television rights, universities generate tens to hundreds of millions of dollars between their football and basketball teams. They exploit the famous players by selling jerseys with their numbers. The athletes are risking possible career ending injuries, yet receive no reward for their risks. If the athletes are the reason people are purchasing tickets and merchandise and why people are watching the games on t.v., why shouldn't the athletes be paid? With the exception of paying the coaches, the schools receive all of the profits from the teams. College is incredibly expensive and even with scholarships, many athletes struggle to afford the expenses associated with college. Receiving a salary for playing would undoubtedly help athletes.

However, some consider scholarships as a form of payment. Division 1 schools are expensive to attend, especially if a player is going to an out-of-state school. So, in a way, players are getting a top notch education for free by receiving an athletic scholarship. Also, paying athletes would give a distinct advantage to bigger schools who generate more money from their teams. For example, according to the "Shame of College Sports" article, big schools like Texas, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, and Penn State generate between $40 million and $80 million per year. Compare that to schools like Kansas and Missouri who generate roughly $15 million annually and the profit gap becomes apparent. If athletes were paid in college, decisions to attend which school would be based on who could pay the most. This would make the level of competition even more lopsided than it already is.

I'm somewhat torn on this topic. I feel it's wrong that schools get to exploit the talents of college athletes to make millions of dollars. Considering all the hard work players put in and the risk of injury they face, I feel athletes should be compensated. However, for the sake of college athletics, I think paying athletes would be detrimental for many reasons. Firstly, players would start picking schools for the wrong reason. Education level wouldn't matter as much, which is an underrated aspect of choosing a school for athletes in my opinion. Also, big schools who can pay the most would get all the best players, giving small schools basically no chance of winning. One of the reason March Madness is so appealing is that year in and year out a small school underdog makes a cinderella run. If athletes were to be paid, I fear this would be nearly impossible.


Jake Packman