Paying College Athletes?

Major issues in the argument for and against paying college athletes

By Jeremy Philipson

After reading the Time article "It's Time to Pay College Athletes," I felt that many issues were raised, but not addressed. Everyone can point out the problem, but coming up with a solution is much more difficult. 

(Note: The Time article proposed a player limit of $30,000 per year, so I will use that figure for arguments sake.)

Logistics

A lot of my personal issues were raised in the Time article, specifically the point of what happens if the NCAA decides to pay athletes. Who gets paid? Both males and females? Every team, or just ones that turn a profit? How much would each athlete earn? Does it depend on class year? Do starters get paid more than bench players? Would there be a salary cap or maximum salary per player? How would each school afford to do this? Obviously, there is a tremendous chasm between the profits of schools like Alabama, Florida, and Syracuse, and schools like Butler, Wichita State, and Central Florida. If programs can only pay players what they can afford, how do the mid-major programs compete with the big boys in recruiting? Also, I think that Title IX would have to be considered. Women’s college athletics have come a huge way since 1972, and would play a role in determining equal compensation for males and females. Not only is it a slippery slope to get a decision, but there are a multitude of factors that need to be considered before any decision is made.

Amateurism

Getty Images

If Johnny Football, CJ Fair and other top players are getting a check after every game, they can no longer be considered a student-athlete. In my mind, if a player is being compensated for their athletic ability (beyond an athletic scholarship), the word amateur needs to be thrown out. Is college going to become a true "minor league" system for the NFL and NBA? Is it going to become a breeding ground for future professional players? This would totally marginalize their education. Being a professor trying to teach 18-year-old kids who are making $30,000 to, essentially, not sit in class, would be impossible. If I'm a projected first-round draft pick getting paid upwards of $30,000 per year, on top of my full athletic scholarship, what motivation (or reason) do I have to attend a bullshit Earth Science class? Would I really care about my grade in Calc 101? Why not spend that time lifting weights, working out, getting better, and improving my draft stock? Most student-athletes already struggle in the classroom. If they start getting paid? Forget about it.

Cornering the Market

Assuming my prior two issues are solved, a third naturally arises. What stops top-tier schools like Michigan, LSU, Oregon, and Notre Dame in football, and Duke, Syracuse, Kansas, and Kentucky in basketball, from just paying the best players in each recruiting class? You could make an argument that these schools already corner the market on top talent, but besides the top 1%, every program experiences ups and downs in recruiting, talent, and on-field/on-court performance. How can Butler or Wichita State, who both made Final Four runs in recent years, be expected to compete with schools in major conferences with multi-billion dollar television deals? These mid-major basketball schools are either turning very little profit or, at best, breaking even.

Jed Jacobsohn/Getty Images

According to a March 2010 CNN Money report, Butler made $2 (yes, two dollars) in the 2009-2010 season. Louisville, UNC, Ohio State, and Arizona all turned a profit of over $16 million that same year. In football, the difference is considerably greater. In a December 2012 report by ESPN, Texas was named the most profitable program, with revenue of over $100 million and profit of almost $80 million. If a high school senior is choosing between Florida ($51 million in profit) offering him $30,000 per year, or Central Florida (not listed) offering him $5,000 per year, the decision is pretty easy. And these conference TV deals prove the point further. Texas has its own television network (called Longhorn Network) which provides 24 hour University of Texas programming. The new ACC television deal is worth $3.6 billion over 15 years, with each school taking $17 million each year (less than the yearly per-school take for the Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12). All I can say to Butler, Wichita State, and Boise State: Good Luck.

Personally, I do not believe that college athletes should be paid. They are receiving an education, sometimes worth in excess of $50,000, for free. Whether they choose to take advantage of that opportunity is up to them. On the other side, I completely understand the thought that these kids are making their schools millions of dollars, and aren’t seeing a dime. To me, there is no middle ground.

I see the NCAA eventually dissolving. The Ed O’Bannon lawsuit (http://bit.ly/14zfYn7) and the Johnny Manziel fiasco this summer proved that change is coming sooner rather than later. Almost everyone agrees that the NCAA is in the wrong; they run a multi-billion dollar industry and pay their “employees” (re: players) nothing. What everyone does not agree on is a solution.

One way or another, the National Collegiate Athletic Association will be changed.

Hopefully, it is for the better.