Argument

Paying College Athletes

        The National Collegiate Athletic Association, better known as the NCAA, is a billion dollar organization.  They oversee and run everything that has to do with college athletics.  More importantly, they make money from about everything that has to do with college athletics.  However, what makes the NCAA unique is the fact that they do not compensate the people making the majority of their money, which is the college athlete.  Although the NCAA has made many changes to their system throughout the years of their existence, this rule of not paying the student athlete has always remained constant, and for good reason.  College athletes should not be paid because it would ruin the tradition of college sports, the system of paying these athletes would be flawed, and also because of the education that college athletes receive.  

        One of the main things that makes college sports so special is the tradition that they hold.  College athletes have never been paid in the past, so why change it now?  College athletes are playing for more than themselves, opposed to possibly professional athletes.  In professional sports, sometimes athletes are more concerned about the check that they are getting instead of the game they are playing. Many times in professional sports, players are seen holding out of contracts and basing where they want to play just on the amount of money they can make. Sports are about more than money and that is why so many people are drawn to college athletics.  These athletes are playing for their teammates, their schools, and the fans of their school.  Sports are about the love and pride of the game, which is always very evident when watching college athletics.  This aspect of college sports is what separates itself from anything else in sports at a high level.  If college athletics is not bent, then why break it?  Even if these athletes were to be paid, the system of doing so would be flawed in many ways.

        All universities and colleges do not generate the same amounts of money through their athletics programs, so paying these athletes fairly would not happen.  For example, athletes at Ohio State generate far more money than athletes at a school such as Arkansas State.  “In 2010, only 22 of the 120 football subdivision schools made money from campus athletics, up only 14 from the previous year (Zirin).”  Although this stat shows the number increasing, that is still a very small amount of schools profiting from just their football team alone.  That means that only a small percentage of schools would even be able to afford to pay their athletes in the first place.  Also, athletes in major conferences would generate a lot more money than athletes in smaller conferences.  In theory, this would mean that athletes generating more money should get paid more money.  Therefore, college athletes would be basing their decision on where to play on where they would get paid more.  This would then lead to a completely different culture in college athletics and eventually it would be just like professional sports in a way.

        The first thing that comes to most minds when thinking about college athletics is college football and men’s college basketball.  However, most athletic programs have a large amount of sports in their program, not to mention both men’s and women’s sports.  Would women athletes be paid the same amount as male athletes?  It is highly unlikely that a woman athlete on a team such as tennis or synchronized swimming would be generating more money than a quarterback on a football team at a high profile school. For example, 2012 Heisman trophy winner, Johnny Manziel generated millions of dollars for his school, Texas A&M. However, a woman’s tennis player at a school like Central Florida probably generates close to zero for her school. Once again, the process about paying these athletes fairly would be very flawed.  The NCAA would have a very hard time going about the right way to find a system to pay them correctly.  

        Lastly, when talking about student athletes, people need to remember that the student aspect comes before the athlete aspect.  A college education is worth a lot of money in today’s world, and college athletes should not take that for granted.  Most athletes who go to school to play a sport get their education paid for through scholarships.  The scholarship pays for tuition and fees, room and board, and many other things.  “Student athletes get clothes, dental work, access to tutors, computers, and transportation (Ford).”  This just shows a small bit of what college athletes get besides a degree while attending their university.  A college education is one of the most valuable things a person can have, and some of these athletes know that. “I never felt like I was an employee of Duke University”, says Tommy Ammaker, a former basketball player for the school (Cooper).  Ammaker goes on to say, “I had a chance to have my education paid for at an incredible school (Cooper).”  Dejuan Fulghum also goes on to talk about having his education paid for, “Paying for my school was enough. The notoriety is good enough for me.  If [professional] football doesn’t work, then I plan on going to graduate school and become a certified public accountant and go from there (Ford).”  These two former college athletes are perfect examples showing how important getting an education is.  College athletes are not going to be able to play sports forever and anything can happen. Having a college degree is a perfect fall back if professional sports does not work out.  Let’s not forget that only a small percentage of these college athletes get the chance to be professional athletes in the first place.  It is a privilege to get a college education while playing a sport, even though not all people feel that way.        

        There are some people all across the country that believe college athletes should in fact be paid, which has sparked this debate.  They believe that college athletes work as employees of their universities and should therefore be compensated. Although they do have a point, college athletes knew what they were getting themselves into when they signed their letter of intent to play college athletics.  They knew that they would have to work harder than other students to be successful.  If they cannot handle long days and a rigorous schedule, then they would simply just not play a sport.  Everyone who has been involved in athletics knows that it is not easy work, but if they could not handle it then they would not do it. The president of the NCAA, Mark Emmert, feels very strongly about college athletes being labeled as employees.  He says paying college athletes would, “be utterly unacceptable...to convert students into employees...I can’t say enough obviously, that student athletes are students.  They are not employees (Zirin).”  Having the president of the NCAA feel this way only shows that paying college athletes will most likely not happen any time soon.

        In the end, paying college athletes would cause a lot more problems than keeping the NCAA system the same and not paying them.  College athletes should not be paid because of the rich tradition college sports holds, the system of paying them would not be fair, and most importantly the college education that these athletes receive.  College sports are like no other in the world of sports, and altering them in this major way would only downgrade them.  Some things should never change.  

Works Cited

Ford, William J. “Even Playing Field?” Diverse: Issues in Higher Education 28.6 (2011): 11-12. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Oct. 2013.

Zirin, Dave. "The Shame Of The NCAA.” Nation 296.13:24-26. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Oct. 2013.

Cooper, Kenneth J. “Should College Athletes Be Paid to Play?” Diverse: Issues in Higher Education 18.10 (2011): 12-13. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Oct. 2013.