essay on why college athletes should not be paid

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, should college athletes be paid an expert debate analysis.

Extracurriculars

The argumentative essay is one of the most frequently assigned types of essays in both high school and college writing-based courses. Instructors often ask students to write argumentative essays over topics that have “real-world relevance.” The question, “Should college athletes be paid?” is one of these real-world relevant topics that can make a great essay subject! 

In this article, we’ll give you all the tools you need to write a solid essay arguing why college athletes should be paid and why college athletes should not be paid. We'll provide:

• An explanation of the NCAA and what role it plays in the lives of student athletes
• A summary of the pro side of the argument that's in favor of college athletes being paid
• A summary of the con side of the argument that believes college athletes shouldn't be paid
• Five tips that will help you write an argumentative essay that answers the question "Should college athletes be paid?" 

The NCAA is the organization that oversees and regulates collegiate athletics. 

What Is the NCAA? 

In order to understand the context surrounding the question, “Should student athletes be paid?”, you have to understand what the NCAA is and how it relates to student-athletes. 

NCAA stands for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (but people usually just call it the “N-C-double-A”). The NCAA is a nonprofit organization that serves as the national governing body for collegiate athletics. 

The NCAA specifically regulates collegiate student athletes at the organization’s 1,098 “member schools.” Student-athletes at these member schools are required to follow the rules set by the NCAA for their academic performance and progress while in college and playing sports. Additionally, the NCAA sets the rules for each of their recognized sports to ensure everyone is playing by the same rules. ( They also change these rules occasionally, which can be pretty controversial! ) 

The NCAA website states that the organization is “dedicated to the well-being and lifelong success of college athletes” and prioritizes their well-being in academics, on the field, and in life beyond college sports. That means the NCAA sets some pretty strict guidelines about what their athletes can and can't do. And of course, right now, college athletes can't be paid for playing their sport. 

As it stands, NCAA athletes are allowed to receive scholarships that cover their college tuition and related school expenses. But historically, they haven't been allowed to receive additional compensation. That meant athletes couldn't receive direct payment for their participation in sports in any form, including endorsement deals, product sponsorships, or gifts.  

Athletes who violated the NCAA’s rules about compensation could be suspended from participating in college sports or kicked out of their athletic program altogether. 

The Problem: Should College Athletes Be Paid? 

You know now that one of the most well-known functions of the NCAA is regulating and limiting the compensation that student-athletes are able to receive. While many people might not question this policy, the question of why college athletes should be paid or shouldn't be paid has actually been a hot-button topic for several years.

The fact that people keep asking the question, “Should student athletes be paid?” indicates that there’s some heat out there surrounding this topic. The issue is frequently debated on sports talk shows , in the news media , and on social media . Most recently, the topic re-emerged in public discourse in the U.S. because of legislation that was passed by the state of California in 2019.

In September 2019, California governor Gavin Newsom signed a law that allowed college athletes in California to strike endorsement deals. An endorsement deal allows athletes to be paid for endorsing a product, like wearing a specific brand of shoes or appearing in an advertisement for a product.

In other words, endorsement deals allow athletes to receive compensation from companies and organizations because of their athletic talent. That means Governor Newsom’s bill explicitly contradicts the NCAA’s rules and regulations for financial compensation for student-athletes at member schools.

But why would Governor Newsom go against the NCAA? Here’s why: the California governor believes that it's unethical for the NCAA to make money based on the unpaid labor of its athletes . And the NCAA definitely makes money: each year, the NCAA upwards of a billion dollars in revenue as a result of its student-athlete talent, but the organization bans those same athletes from earning any money for their talent themselves. With the new California law, athletes would be able to book sponsorships and use agents to earn money, if they choose to do so. 

The NCAA’s initial response to California’s new law was to push back hard. But after more states introduced similar legislation , the NCAA changed its tune. In October 2019, the NCAA pledged to pass new regulations when the board voted unanimously to allow student athletes to receive compensation for use of their name, image, and likeness. 

Simply put: student athletes can now get paid through endorsement deals. 

In the midst of new state legislation and the NCAA’s response, the ongoing debate about paying college athletes has returned to the spotlight. Everyone from politicians, to sports analysts, to college students are arguing about it. There are strong opinions on both sides of the issue, so we’ll look at how some of those opinions can serve as key points in an argumentative essay.

Let's take a look at the arguments in favor of paying student athletes!

The Pros: Why College Athletes Should B e Paid

Since the argument about whether college athletes should be paid has gotten a lot of public attention, there are some lines of reasoning that are frequently called upon to support the claim that college athletes should be paid. 

In this section, we'll look at the three biggest arguments in favor of why college athletes should be paid. We'll also give you some ideas on how you can support these arguments in an argumentative essay.

Argument 1: The Talent Should Receive Some of the Profits

This argument on why college athletes should be paid is probably the one people cite the most. It’s also the easiest one to support with facts and evidence. 

Essentially, this argument states that the NCAA makes millions of dollars because people pay to watch college athletes compete, and it isn’t fair that the athletes don't get a share of the profits

Without the student athletes, the NCAA wouldn’t earn over a billion dollars in annual revenue , and college and university athletic programs wouldn’t receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from the NCAA each year. In fact, without student athletes, the NCAA wouldn’t exist at all. 

Because student athletes are the ones who generate all this revenue, people in favor of paying college athletes argue they deserve to receive some of it back. Otherwise, t he NCAA and other organizations (like media companies, colleges, and universities) are exploiting a bunch of talented young people for their own financial gain.

To support this argument in favor of paying college athletes, you should include specific data and revenue numbers that show how much money the NCAA makes (and what portion of that actually goes to student athletes). For example, they might point out the fact that the schools that make the most money in college sports only spend around 10% of their tens of millions in athletics revenue on scholarships for student-athletes. Analyzing the spending practices of the NCAA and its member institutions could serve as strong evidence to support this argument in a “why college athletes should be paid” essay. 

I've you've ever been a college athlete, then you know how hard you have to train in order to compete. It can feel like a part-time job...which is why some people believe athletes should be paid for their work!

Argument 2: College Athletes Don’t Have Time to Work Other Jobs

People sometimes casually refer to being a student-athlete as a “full-time job.” For many student athletes, this is literally true. The demands on a student-athlete’s time are intense. Their days are often scheduled down to the minute, from early in the morning until late at night. 

One thing there typically isn’t time for in a student-athlete’s schedule? Working an actual job. 

Sports programs can imply that student-athletes should treat their sport like a full-time job as well. This can be problematic for many student-athletes, who may not have any financial resources to cover their education. (Not all NCAA athletes receive full, or even partial, scholarships!) While it may not be expressly forbidden for student-athletes to get a part-time job, the pressure to go all-in for your team while still maintaining your eligibility can be tremendous. 

In addition to being a financial burden, the inability to work a real job as a student-athlete can have consequences for their professional future. Other college students get internships or other career-specific experience during college—opportunities that student-athletes rarely have time for. When they graduate, proponents of this stance argue, student-athletes are under-experienced and may face challenges with starting a career outside of the sports world.

Because of these factors, some argue that if people are going to refer to being a student-athlete as a “full-time job,” then student-athletes should be paid for doing that job.  

To support an argument of this nature, you can offer real-life examples of a student-athlete’s daily or weekly schedule to show that student-athletes have to treat their sport as a full-time job. For instance, this Twitter thread includes a range of responses from real student-athletes to an NCAA video portraying a rose-colored interpretation of a day in the life of a student-athlete. 

Presenting the Twitter thread as one form of evidence in an essay would provide effective support for the claim that college athletes should be paid as if their sport is a “full-time job.” You might also take this stance in order to claim that if student-athletes aren’t getting paid, we must adjust our demands on their time and behavior.

Argument 3: Only Some Student Athletes Should Be Paid

This take on the question, “Should student athletes be paid?” sits in the middle ground between the more extreme stances on the issue. There are those who argue that only the student athletes who are big money-makers for their university and the NCAA should be paid.  

The reasoning behind this argument? That’s just how capitalism works. There are always going to be student-athletes who are more talented and who have more media-magnetizing personalities. They’re the ones who are going to be the face of athletic programs, who lead their teams to playoffs and conference victories, and who are approached for endorsement opportunities. 

Additionally, some sports don't make money for their schools. Many of these sports fall under Title IX, which states that no one can be excluded from participation in a federally-funded program (including sports) because of their gender or sex. Unfortunately, many of these programs aren't popular with the public , which means they don't make the same revenue as high-dollar sports like football or basketball . 

In this line of thinking, since there isn’t realistically enough revenue to pay every single college athlete in every single sport, the ones who generate the most revenue are the only ones who should get a piece of the pie. 

To prove this point, you can look at revenue numbers as well. For instance, the womens' basketball team at the University of Louisville lost $3.8 million dollars in revenue during the 2017-2018 season. In fact, the team generated less money than they pay for their coaching staff. In instances like these, you might argue that it makes less sense to pay athletes than it might in other situations (like for University of Alabama football, which rakes in over $110 million dollars a year .) 

There are many people who think it's a bad idea to pay college athletes, too. Let's take a look at the opposing arguments. 

The Cons: Why College Athletes Shouldn't Be Paid

People also have some pretty strong opinions about why college athletes shouldn't be paid. These arguments can make for a pretty compelling essay, too! 

In this section, we'll look at the three biggest arguments against paying college athletes. We'll also talk about how you can support each of these claims in an essay. 

Argument 1: College Athletes Already Get Paid

On this side of the fence, the most common reason given for why college athletes should not be paid is that they already get paid: they receive free tuition and, in some cases, additional funding to cover their room, board, and miscellaneous educational expenses. 

Proponents of this argument state that free tuition and covered educational expenses is compensation enough for student-athletes. While this money may not go straight into a college athlete's pocket, it's still a valuable resource . Considering most students graduate with nearly $30,000 in student loan debt , an athletic scholarship can have a huge impact when it comes to making college affordable . 

Evidence for this argument might look at the financial support that student-athletes receive for their education, and compare those numbers to the financial support that non-athlete students receive for their schooling. You can also cite data that shows the real value of a college tuition at certain schools. For example, student athletes on scholarship at Duke may be "earning" over $200,000 over the course of their collegiate careers. 

This argument works to highlight the ways in which student-athletes are compensated in financial and in non-financial ways during college , essentially arguing that the special treatment they often receive during college combined with their tuition-free ride is all the compensation they have earned.

Some people who are against paying athletes believe that compensating athletes will lead to amateur athletes being treated like professionals. Many believe this is unfair and will lead to more exploitation, not less. 

Argument 2: Paying College Athletes Would Side-Step the Real Problem

Another argument against paying student athletes is that college sports are not professional sports , and treating student athletes like professionals exploits them and takes away the spirit of amateurism from college sports . 

This stance may sound idealistic, but those who take this line of reasoning typically do so with the goal of protecting both student-athletes and the tradition of “amateurism” in college sports. This argument is built on the idea that the current system of college sports is problematic and needs to change, but that paying student-athletes is not the right solution. 

Instead, this argument would claim that there is an even better way to fix the corrupt system of NCAA sports than just giving student-athletes a paycheck. To support such an argument, you might turn to the same evidence that’s cited in this NPR interview : the European model of supporting a true minor league system for most sports is effective, so the U.S. should implement a similar model. 

In short: creating a minor league can ensure athletes who want a career in their sport get paid, while not putting the burden of paying all collegiate athletes on a university. 

Creating and supporting a true professional minor league would allow the students who want to make money playing sports to do so. Universities could then confidently put earned revenue from sports back into the university, and student-athletes wouldn’t view their college sports as the best and only path to a career as a professional athlete. Those interested in playing professionally would be able to pursue this dream through the minor leagues instead, and student athletes could just be student athletes. 

The goal of this argument is to sort of achieve a “best of both worlds” solution: with the development and support of a true minor league system, student-athletes would be able to focus on the foremost goal of getting an education, and those who want to get paid for their sport can do so through the minor league. Through this model, student-athletes’ pursuit of their education is protected, and college sports aren’t bogged down in ethical issues and logistical hang-ups. 

Argument 3: It Would Be a Logistical Nightmare

This argument against paying student athletes takes a stance on the basis of logistics. Essentially, this argument states that while the current system is flawed, paying student athletes is just going to make the system worse. So until someone can prove that paying collegiate athletes will fix the system, it's better to maintain the status quo. 

Formulating an argument around this perspective basically involves presenting the different proposals for how to go about paying college athletes, then poking holes in each proposed approach. Such an argument would probably culminate in stating that the challenges to implementing pay for college athletes are reason enough to abandon the idea altogether. 

Here's what we mean. One popular proposed approach to paying college athletes is the notion of “pay-for-play.” In this scenario, all college athletes would receive the same weekly stipend to play their sport . 

In this type of argument, you might explain the pay-for-play solution, then pose some questions toward the approach that expose its weaknesses, such as: Where would the money to pay athletes come from? How could you pay athletes who play certain sports, but not others? How would you avoid Title IX violations? Because there are no easy answers to these questions, you could argue that paying college athletes would just create more problems for the world of college sports to deal with.

Posing these difficult questions may persuade a reader that attempting to pay college athletes would cause too many issues and lead them to agree with the stance that college athletes should not be paid. 

5 Tips for Writing About Paying College Athletes

If you’re assigned the prompt “Should college athletes be paid," don't panic. There are several steps you can take to write an amazing argumentative essay about the topic! We've broken our advice into five helpful tips that you can use to persuade your readers (and ace your assignment).

Tip 1: Plan Out a Logical Structure for Your Essay

In order to write a logical, well-organized argumentative essay, one of the first things you need to do is plan out a structure for your argument. Using a bare-bones argumentative outline for a “why college athletes should be paid” essay is a good place to start. 

Check out our example of an argumentative essay outline for this topic below: 

• The thesis statement must communicate the topic of the essay: Whether college athletes should be paid, and 
• Convey a position on that topic: That college athletes should/ should not be paid, and 
• State a couple of defendable, supportable reasons why college athletes should be paid (or vice versa).
• Support Point #1 with evidence
• Explain/interpret the evidence with your own, original commentary 
• Support Point #2 with evidence
• Explain/interpret the evidence with your own, original commentary
• Support Point #3 with evidence
• New body paragraph addressing opposing viewpoints
• Concluding paragraph

This outline does a few things right. First, it makes sure you have a strong thesis statement. Second, it helps you break your argument down into main points (that support your thesis, of course). Lastly, it reminds you that you need to both include evidence and explain your evidence for each of your argumentative points. 

While you can go off-book once you start drafting if you feel like you need to, having an outline to start with can help you visualize how many argumentative points you have, how much evidence you need, and where you should insert your own commentary throughout your essay. 

Remember: the best argumentative essays are organized ones! 

Tip 2: Create a Strong Thesis 

T he most important part of the introduction to an argumentative essay claiming that college athletes should/should not be paid is the thesis statement. You can think of a thesis like a backbone: your thesis ties all of your essay parts together so your paper can stand on its own two feet! 

So what does a good thesis look like? A solid thesis statement in this type of argumentative essay will convey your stance on the topic (“Should college athletes be paid?”) and present one or more supportable reasons why you’re making this argument. 

With these goals in mind, here’s an example of a thesis statement that includes clear reasons that support the stance that college athletes should be paid: 

Because the names, image, and talents of college athletes are used for massive financial gain, college athletes should be able to benefit from their athletic career in the same way that their universities do by getting endorsements. 

Here's a thesis statement that takes the opposite stance--that college athletes shouldn’t be paid --and includes a reason supporting that stance: 

In order to keep college athletics from becoming over-professionalized, compensation for college athletes should be restricted to covering college tuition and related educational expenses.

Both of these sample thesis statements make it clear that your essay is going to be dedicated to making an argument: either that college athletes should be paid, or that college athletes shouldn’t be paid. They both convey some reasons why you’re making this argument that can also be supported with evidence. 

Your thesis statement gives your argumentative essay direction . Instead of ranting about why college athletes should/shouldn’t be paid in the remainder of your essay, you’ll find sources that help you explain the specific claim you made in your thesis statement. And a well-organized, adequately supported argument is the kind that readers will find persuasive!

Tip 3: Find Credible Sources That Support Your Thesis

In an argumentative essay, your commentary on the issue you’re arguing about is obviously going to be the most fun part to write. But great essays will cite outside sources and other facts to help substantiate their argumentative points. That's going to involve—you guessed it!—research. 

For this particular topic, the issue of whether student athletes should be paid has been widely discussed in the news media (think The New York Times , NPR , or ESPN ). 

For example, this data reported by the NCAA shows a breakdown of the gender and racial demographics of member-school administration, coaching staff, and student athletes. These are hard numbers that you could interpret and pair with the well-reasoned arguments of news media writers to support a particular point you’re making in your argument. 

Though this may seem like a topic that wouldn’t generate much scholarly research, it’s worth a shot to check your library database for peer-reviewed studies of student athletes’ experiences in college to see if anything related to paying student athletes pops up. Scholarly research is the holy grail of evidence, so try to find relevant articles if you can. 

Ultimately, if you can incorporate a mix of mainstream sources, quantitative or statistical evidence, and scholarly, peer-reviewed sources, you’ll be on-track to building an excellent argument in response to the question, “Should student athletes be paid?”

Having multiple argumentative points in your essay helps you support your thesis.

Tip 4: Develop and Support Multiple Points

We’ve reviewed how to write an intro and thesis statement addressing the issue of paying college athletes, so let’s talk next about the meat and potatoes of your argumentative essay: the body paragraphs. 

The body paragraphs that are sandwiched between your intro paragraph and concluding paragraph are where you build and explain your argument. Generally speaking, each body paragraph should do the following: 

• Start with a topic sentence that presents a point that supports your stance and that can be debated, 
• Present summaries, paraphrases, or quotes from credible sources--evidence, in other words--that supports the point stated in the topic sentence, and
• Explain and interpret the evidence presented with your own, original commentary. 

In an argumentative essay on why college athletes should be paid, for example, a body paragraph might look like this: 

Thesis Statement : College athletes should not be paid because it would be a logistical nightmare for colleges and universities and ultimately cause negative consequences for college sports. 

Body Paragraph #1: While the notion of paying college athletes is nice in theory, a major consequence of doing so would be the financial burden this decision would place on individual college sports programs. A recent study cited by the NCAA showed that only about 20 college athletic programs consistently operate in the black at the present time. If the NCAA allows student-athletes at all colleges and universities to be paid, the majority of athletic programs would not even have the funds to afford salaries for their players anyway. This would mean that the select few athletic programs that can afford to pay their athletes’ salaries would easily recruit the most talented players and, thus, have the tools to put together teams that destroy their competition. Though individual athletes would benefit from the NCAA allowing compensation for student-athletes, most athletic programs would suffer, and so would the spirit of healthy competition that college sports are known for. 

If you read the example body paragraph above closely, you’ll notice that there’s a topic sentence that supports the claim made in the thesis statement. There’s also evidence given to support the claim made in the topic sentence--a recent study by the NCAA. Following the evidence, the writer interprets the evidence for the reader to show how it supports their opinion. 

Following this topic sentence/evidence/explanation structure will help you construct a well-supported and developed argument that shows your readers that you’ve done your research and given your stance a lot of thought. And that's a key step in making sure you get an excellent grade on your essay! 

Tip 5: Keep the Reader Thinking

The best argumentative essay conclusions reinterpret your thesis statement based on the evidence and explanations you provided throughout your essay. You would also make it clear why the argument about paying college athletes even matters in the first place. 

There are several different approaches you can take to recap your argument and get your reader thinking in your conclusion paragraph. In addition to restating your topic and why it’s important, other effective ways to approach an argumentative essay conclusion could include one or more of the following: 

While you don’t want to get too wordy in your conclusion or present new claims that you didn’t bring up in the body of your essay, you can write an effective conclusion and make all of the moves suggested in the bulleted list above. 

Here’s an example conclusion for an argumentative essay on paying college athletes using approaches we just talked about:

Though it’s true that scholarships and financial aid are a form of compensation for college athletes, it’s also true that the current system of college sports places a lot of pressure on college athletes to behave like professional athletes in every way except getting paid. Future research should turn its attention to the various inequities within college sports and look at the long-term economic outcomes of these athletes. While college athletes aren't paid right now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that a paycheck is the best solution to the problem. To avoid the possibility of making the college athletics system even worse, people must consider the ramifications of paying college students and ensure that paying athletes doesn't create more harm than good.

This conclusion restates the argument of the essay (that college athletes shouldn't be paid and why), then uses the "Future Research" tactic to make the reader think more deeply about the topic. 

If your conclusion sums up your thesis and keeps the reader thinking, you’ll make sure that your essay sticks in your readers' minds.

Should College Athletes Be Paid: Next Steps 

Writing an argumentative essay can seem tough, but with a little expert guidance, you'll be well on your way to turning in a great paper . Our complete, expert guide to argumentative essays can give you the extra boost you need to ace your assignment!

Perhaps college athletics isn't your cup of tea. That's okay: there are tons of topics you can write about in an argumentative paper. We've compiled 113 amazing argumentative essay topics so that you're practically guaranteed to find an idea that resonates with you.

If you're not a super confident essay writer, it can be helpful to look at examples of what others have written. Our experts have broken down three real-life argumentative essays to show you what you should and shouldn't do in your own writing.

Ashley Sufflé Robinson has a Ph.D. in 19th Century English Literature. As a content writer for PrepScholar, Ashley is passionate about giving college-bound students the in-depth information they need to get into the school of their dreams.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

• For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

An Argument For Not Allowing College Athletes To Earn Compensation

NPR's Mary Louise Kelly speaks with Ekow Yankah, author of The New Yorker essay, "Why N.C.A.A. Athletes Shouldn't Be Paid," about the NCAA's decision to allow college athletes to earn compensation.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

• Bachelor’s Degrees
• Master’s Degrees
• Doctorate Degrees
• Certificate Programs
• Nursing Degrees
• Cybersecurity
• Human Services
• Science & Mathematics
• Communication
• Liberal Arts
• Social Sciences
• Computer Science
• Admissions Overview
• Tuition and Financial Aid
• Incoming Freshman and Graduate Students
• Transfer Students
• Military Students
• International Students
• Early Access Program
• About Maryville
• Our Faculty
• Our Approach
• Our History
• Accreditation
• Tales of the Brave
• Student Support Overview
• Online Learning Tools
• Infographics

Home / Blog

Should College Athletes Be Paid? Reasons Why or Why Not

January 3, 2022 

Tables of Contents

Why are college athletes not getting paid by their schools?

How do student athlete scholarships work, what are the pros and cons of compensation for college athletes, keeping education at the center of college sports.

Since its inception in 1906, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has governed intercollegiate sports and enforced a rule prohibiting college athletes to be paid. Football, basketball, and a handful of other college sports began to generate tremendous revenue for many schools in the mid-20th century, yet the NCAA continued to prohibit payments to athletes. The NCAA justified the restriction by claiming it was necessary to  protect amateurism  and distinguish “student athletes” from professionals.

The question of whether college athletes should be paid was answered in part by the Supreme Court’s June 21, 2021, ruling in  National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, et. al.  The decision affirmed a lower court’s ruling that blocked the NCAA from enforcing its rules restricting the compensation that college athletes may receive.

• As a result of the NCAA v. Alston ruling, college athletes now have the right to profit from their  name, image, and likeness  (NIL) while retaining the right to participate in their sport at the college level. (The prohibition against schools paying athletes directly remains in effect.)
• Several states have passed laws  that allow such compensation. Colleges and universities in those states must abide by these new laws when devising and implementing their own policies toward NIL compensation for college athletes.

Participating in sports benefits students in many ways: It helps them focus, provides motivation, builds resilience, and develops other skills that serve students in their careers and in their lives. The vast majority of college athletes will never become professional athletes and are happy to receive a full or partial scholarship that covers tuition and education expenses as their only compensation for playing sports.

Athletes playing Division I football, basketball, baseball, and other sports generate revenue for their schools and for third parties such as video game manufacturers and media companies. Many of these athletes believe it’s unfair for schools and businesses to profit from their hard work and talent without sharing the profits with them. They also point out that playing sports entails physical risk in addition to a considerable investment in time and effort.

This guide considers the reasons for and against paying college athletes, and the implications of recent court rulings and legislation on college athletes, their schools, their sports, and the role of the NCAA in the modern sports environment.

Back To Top

Discover a first-of-its-kind sport business management program

The online BS in Rawlings Sport Business Management from Maryville University will equip you with valuable skills in marketing, finance and public relations. No SAT or ACT scores required.

• Engage in a range of relevant course topics, from sports marketing to operations management.
• Gain real-world experience through professional internships.

The reasons why college athletes aren’t paid go back to the first organized sports competitions between colleges and universities in the late 19th century. Amateurism in college sports reflects the “ aristocratic amateurism ” of sports played in Europe at the time, even though most of the athletes at U.S. colleges had working-class backgrounds.

By the early 20th century, college football had gained a reputation for rowdiness and violence, much of which was attributed to the teams’ use of professional athletes. This led to the creation of the NCAA, which prohibited professionalism in college sports and enforced rules restricting compensation for college athletes. The rules are intended to preserve the amateurism of student participants. The NCAA justified the rules on two grounds:

• Fans would lose interest in the games if the players were professional athletes.
• Limiting compensation to capped scholarships ensures that college athletes remain part of the college community.

NCAA rules also prohibited college athletes from receiving payment to “ advertise, recommend, or promote ” any commercial product or service. Athletes were barred from participating in sports if they signed a contract to be represented by an agent as well. As a result of the NIL court decision, the NCAA will no longer enforce its rule relating to compensation for NIL activities and will allow athletes to sign contracts with agents.

Major college sports now generate billions in revenue for their schools each year

For decades, colleges and universities have operated under the assumption that  scholarships are sufficient compensation  for college athletes. Nearly all college sports cost more for the schools to operate than they generate in revenue for the institution, and scholarships are all that participants expect.

But while most sports don’t generate revenue, a handful, notably football and men’s and women’s basketball, stand out as significant exceptions to the rule:

• Many schools that field teams in the NCAA’s Division I football tier  regularly earn tens of millions of dollars  each year from the sport.
• The NCAA tournaments for men’s and women’s Division I basketball championships  generated more than $1 billion in 2019 .

Many major colleges and universities generate a considerable amount of money from their athletic teams:

• The Power Five college sports conferences — the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 12, and Southeastern Conference (SEC) —  generated more than $2.9 billion  in revenue from sports in fiscal 2020, according to federal tax records reported by  USA Today .
• This figure represents an increase of $11 million from 2019, a total that was reduced because of restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
• In the six years prior to 2020, the conferences recorded collective annual revenue increases averaging about $252 million.

What are name, image, likeness agreements for student athletes?

In recent years some college athletes at schools that field teams in the NCAA’s highest divisions have protested the restrictions placed on their ability to be compensated for third parties’ use of their name, image, and likeness. During the 2021 NCAA Division I basketball tournament known familiarly as March Madness, several players wore shirts bearing the hashtag “ #NotNCAAProperty ” to call attention to their objections.

Following the decision in NCAA v. Alston, the NCAA  enacted a temporary policy  allowing college athletes to enter into NIL agreements and other endorsements. The interim policy will be in place until federal legislation is enacted or new NCAA rules are created governing NIL contracts for college athletes.

• Student athletes are now able to sign endorsement deals, profit from their use of social media, and receive compensation for personal appearances and signing autographs.
• If they attend a school located in a state that has enacted NIL legislation, they are subject to any restrictions present in those state laws. As of mid-August 2021,  40 states had enacted laws  governing NIL contracts for college athletes.
• If their school is in a state without such a law, the college or university will determine its own NIL policies, although the NCAA prohibits pay-for-play and improper recruiting inducements.
• Student athletes are allowed to sign with sports agents and enter into agreements with school boosters so long as the deals abide by state laws and school policies.

Within weeks of the NCAA policy change, premier college athletes began signing NIL agreements with the potential to  earn them hundreds of thousands of dollars .

• Bryce Young, a sophomore quarterback for the University of Alabama, has nearly $1 million in endorsement deals.
• Quarterback Quinn Ewers decided to skip his last year of high school and enroll early at Ohio State University so he could make money from endorsements.
• A booster for the University of Miami pledged to pay each member of the school’s football team $500 for endorsing his business.

How will the change affect college athletes and their schools?

The  repercussions of court decisions and state laws  that allow college athletes to sign NIL agreements continue to be felt at campuses across the country, even though schools and athletes have received little guidance on how to manage the process.

• The top high school athletes in football, basketball, and other revenue-generating college sports will consider their potential for endorsement earnings while being recruited by various schools.
• The first NIL agreements highlight the disparity between what elite college athletes can expect to earn and what other athletes may realize. On one NIL platform, the average amount earned by Division I athletes was $471, yet one athlete made $210,000 in July alone.
• Most NIL deals at present are for small amounts, typically about $100 in free apparel, in exchange for endorsing a product on social media.

The presidents and other leaders of colleges and universities that field Division I sports have not yet responded to the changes in college athlete compensation other than to reiterate that they do not operate for-profit sports franchises. However, the NCAA requires that  Division I sports programs  be self-supporting, in contrast to sports programs at Division II and III institutions, which receive funding directly from their schools.

Many members of the Power 5 sports conferences have reported shortfalls in their operations, leading analysts to anticipate  major structural reforms  in the governing of college sports in the near future. The recent changes have also caused some people to believe the  NCAA is no longer relevant  or necessary.

How do highly competitive athletic scholarships work? According to the NCAA and Next College Student Athlete: $3.6 billion+ in athletic scholarships are awarded annually, and 180,000+ student athletes receive scholarships every year. Additionally, about 2% of athletes win a sports scholarship; college coaches award scholarships based on athletic ability; full scholarships are given for the top six college sports categories; and athletic scholarships are renewable each year.

The primary financial compensation student athletes receive is a scholarship that pays all or part of their tuition and other college-related expenses. Other forms of financial assistance available to student athletes include  grants, loans, and merit aid .

• Grants  are also called “gift aid,” because students are not expected to pay them back (with some exceptions, such as failing to complete the course of study for which the grant was awarded). Grants are awarded based on a student’s financial need. The  four types of grants  awarded by the U.S. Department of Education are  Federal Pell Grants ,  Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants ,  Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grants , and  Teacher Education Assistance for College or Higher Education (TEACH) Grants .
• Loans  are available to cover education expenses from government agencies and private banks. Students must pay the loans back over a specified period after graduating from or leaving school, including interest charges. EducationData.org estimates that as of 2020, the  average amount of school-related debt  owed by college graduates was $37,693.
• Merit aid  is awarded based on the student’s academic, athletic, artistic, and other achievements.  Athletic scholarships  are a form of merit aid that typically cover one academic year at a time and are renewable each year, although some are awarded for up to four years.

Full athletic scholarships vs. partial scholarships

When most people think of a student athlete scholarship, they have in mind a  full-ride scholarship  that covers nearly all college-related expenses. However, most student athletes receive partial scholarships that may pay tuition but not college fees and living expenses, for example.

A student athlete scholarship is a nonguaranteed financial agreement between the school and the student. The NCAA refers to full-ride scholarships awarded to student athletes entering certain Division I sports programs as  head count scholarships  because they are awarded per athlete. Conversely, equivalency sports divide scholarships among multiple athletes, some of whom may receive a full scholarship and some a partial scholarship. Equivalency awards are divided among a team’s athletes at the discretion of the coaches, as long as they do not exceed the allowed scholarships for their sport.

These Division I sports distribute scholarships per head count:

• Men’s football
• Men’s basketball
• Women’s basketball
• Women’s volleyball
• Women’s gymnastics
• Women’s tennis

These are among the Division I equivalency sports for men:

• Track and field
• Cross-country

These are the Division I equivalency sports for women:

• Field hockey

All Division II and National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) sports programs distribute scholarships on an equivalency basis. Division III sports programs do not award sports scholarships, although other forms of financial aid are available to student athletes at these schools.

How college athletic scholarships are awarded

In most cases, the coaching staff of a team determines which students will receive scholarships after spending time scouting and recruiting. The NCAA imposes  strict rules for recruiting student athletes  and provides a guide to help students  determine their eligibility  to play college sports.

Once a student has received a scholarship offer from a college or university, the person may sign a national letter of intent (NLI), which is a voluntary, legally binding contract between an athlete and the school committing the student to enroll and play the designated sport for that school only. The school agrees to provide financial aid for one academic year as long as the student is admitted and eligible to receive the aid.

After the student signs an NLI, other schools are prohibited from recruiting them. Students who have signed an NLI may ask the school to release them from the commitment; if a student attends a school other than the one with which they have an NLI agreement, they lose one full year of eligibility and must complete a full academic year at the new school before they can compete in their sport.

Very few student athletes are awarded a full scholarship, and even a “full” scholarship may not pay for all of a student’s college and living expenses. The  average Division I sports scholarship  in the 2019-20 fiscal year was about $18,000, according to figures compiled by ScholarshipStats.com, although some private universities had average scholarship awards that were more than twice that amount. However, EducationData.org estimates that the  average cost of one year of college  in the U.S. is $35,720. They estimate the following costs by type of school.

• The average annual cost for an in-state student attending a public four-year college or university is $25,615.
• Average in-state tuition for one year is $9,580, and out-of-state tuition costs an average of $27,437.
• The average cost at a private university is $53,949 per academic year, about $37,200 of which is tuition and fees.

Student athlete scholarship resources

• College Finance, “Full-Ride vs. Partial-Ride Athletic Scholarships”  — The college expenses covered by full athletic scholarships, how to qualify for partial athletic scholarships, and alternatives to scholarships for paying college expenses
• Student First Educational Consulting, “Athletic Scholarship Issues for 2021-2022 and Beyond”  — A discussion of the decline in the number of college athletic scholarships as schools drop athletic programs, and changes to the rules for college athletes transferring to new schools

According to College Strategic, Fansided, and Future of Working, reasons why paying college athletes is fair include: 1. Playing sports resembles a full-time job. 2. Sports take time away from studies. 3. Sports generate corporate profits. 4. Pay minimizes athlete corruption. 5. Pay provides spending money. 6. Playing sports creates injury risk. 7. Sports elevate school brands. 8. Pay motivates performance. 9. Scholarships reduce poverty.

There are many reasons why student athletes should be paid, but there are also valid reasons why student athletes should not be paid in certain circumstances. The lifting of NCAA restrictions on NIL agreements for college athletes has altered the landscape of major college sports but will likely have little or no impact on the majority of student athletes, who will continue to compete as true amateurs.

Reasons why student athletes should be paid

The argument raised most often in favor of allowing college athletes to receive compensation is that  colleges and universities profit  from the sports they play but do not share the proceeds with the athletes who are the ultimate source of that profit.

• In 2017 (the most recent year for which figures are available), the NCAA recorded $1.07 billion in revenue. The organization’s president earned $2.7 million in 2018, and nine other NCAA executives had salaries greater than $500,000 that year.
• Elite college coaches earn millions of dollars a year in salary, topped by University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban’s $9.3 million annual salary.
• Many of the athletes at leading football and basketball programs are from low-income families, and the majority will not become professional athletes.
• College athletes take great physical risks to play their sports and put their future earning potential at risk. In school they may be directed toward nonchallenging courses, which denies them the education their fellow students receive.

Reasons why student athletes should not be paid

Opponents to paying college athletes rebut these arguments by pointing to the primary role of colleges and universities: to provide students with a rewarding educational experience that prepares them for their professional careers. These are among the reasons they give for not paying student athletes.

• Scholarships are the fairest form of compensation for student athletes considering the financial strain that college athletic departments are under. Most schools in Division I, II, and III spend more money on athletics than they receive in revenue from the sports.
• College athletes who receive scholarships are presented with an opportunity to earn a valuable education that will increase their earning power throughout their career outside of sports. A Gallup survey of NCAA athletes found that  70% graduate in four years or fewer , compared to 65% of all undergraduate students.
• Paying college athletes will “ diminish the spirit of amateurism ” that distinguishes college sports from their professional counterparts. Limiting compensation for playing a sport to the cost of attending school avoids creating a separate class of students who are profiting from their time in school.

According to Best Colleges, Salarship, and CollegeVine, reasons why paying college athletes is less than ideal include: 1. Money may harm students. 2. Pay diminishes love of the game. 3. Pay deemphasizes academic purpose. 4. Secondary sports struggle. 5. Rich schools monopolize talent. 6. The financial benefit is marginal. 7. Setting salaries can be messy. 8. Academic requirements are substandard. 9. Other program budgets are reduced.

How do college athlete endorsements work?

Soon after the Supreme Court released its decision in NCAA v. Alston, the NCAA issued  guidelines for schools  that allow college athletes to make money from product endorsements, social media accounts, autographs, and other uses of their name, image, or likeness. This counters the NCAA’s longstanding opposition to student athletes profiting from endorsements. At present, implementation of the guidelines varies from school to school and state to state, which means athletes at some institutions may benefit more from NIL agreements than those attending other schools.

Several  NIL consultancy firms  are actively soliciting endorsements from college athletes in the aftermath of the rule change.

• Highly touted 19-year-old basketball recruit Hercy Miller, who joined the Tennessee State University basketball team in 2021, signed a $2 million endorsement deal with Web Apps America.
• University of Michigan quarterback Cade McNamara has entered into an endorsement deal with cryptocurrency company More Management that will  pay him in cryptocurrency .
• Twin sisters Haley and Hanna Cavinder of the Fresno State University basketball team have  marketing agreements  to promote Boost Mobile and Six Star Pro Nutrition to the 3.3 million followers of their TikTok account.
• Gable Steveson, a wrestler for the University of Minnesota, entered into an endorsement deal with the delivery service Gopuff; Steveson has 245,000 followers on Instagram and 30,000 on Twitter.

Despite the rush of high-profile college athletes signing endorsement deals, some educators and analysts express concern about the  impact of the endorsements  on schools, athletes, and college sports.

• Schools with more favorable endorsement rules may entice student athletes away from the schools they are currently attending.
• Likewise, states that have enacted endorsement laws that provide more earning potential for college athletes may see more top recruits choosing to attend schools in those states.
• The time college athletes spend meeting the requirements of their endorsement contracts could detract from study and practice time. This can have an adverse effect on their education and athletic careers — if they are unable to maintain grade requirements, for example, they may be disqualified from playing.
• If a college athlete’s performance in the sport declines, they may be less likely to attract and retain endorsement deals. While the NCAA has banned NIL agreements based on the athlete meeting specific performance criteria, the group acknowledges that a student’s athletic performance  may enhance their NIL value .
• Because of complicated contracts and tax laws, student athletes will have to rely on agents, advisers, and managers, which may leave them vulnerable to exploitation.

From the onset of intercollegiate sports, students have benefited from their participation by learning dedication to their sport, building relationships, and being part of a team. Sports allow students to acquire many important values, such as fair competition and physical and mental health. Education should remain at the forefront of all aspects of college, including sports, whether or not collegiate athletes are paid.

Infographic Source

Best Colleges, “Should College Athletes Be Paid?”

College Strategic, “Why College Athletes Should Be Paid”

CollegeVine, “Should College Athletes Be Paid? Pros and Cons”

Fansided, “64 Reasons College Athletes Need to Be Paid”

Future of Working, “17 Advantages and Disadvantages of Paying College Athletes”

NCAA, “Scholarships”

Next College Student Athlete, “What Are the Different Types of Offers I Could Get?”

Salarship, “Should College Athletes Be Paid: Pros and Cons”

Bring us your ambition and we’ll guide you along a personalized path to a quality education that’s designed to change your life.

Take Your Next Brave Step

Receive information about the benefits of our programs, the courses you'll take, and what you need to apply.

What are your chances of acceptance?

Calculate for all schools, your chance of acceptance.

Your chancing factors

Extracurriculars.

Should College Athletes Be Paid? Pros and Cons

Do you know how to improve your profile for college applications.

See how your profile ranks among thousands of other students using CollegeVine. Calculate your chances at your dream schools and learn what areas you need to improve right now — it only takes 3 minutes and it's 100% free.

Show me what areas I need to improve

What’s Covered:

History of the debate: should college athletes be paid, why college athletes should be paid.

• Why College Athletes Shouldn’t Be Paid
• Where To Get Your Essay Edited For Free

College athletics provide big benefits for many schools: they increase their profile, generate millions of dollars in revenue, and have led to one of the most contentious questions in sports— should college athletes be paid? Like other difficult questions, there are good arguments on both sides of the issue of paying college athletes. 

Historically, the debates over paying college athletes have only led to more questions, which is why it’s raged on for more than a century. Perhaps the earliest group to examine the quandary was Andrew Carnegie’s Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, which produced a mammoth study in 1929 of amateur athletes and the profits they generate for their universities. You don’t have to get past the preface to find questions that feel at home in today’s world:

• “What relation has this astonishing athletic display to the work of an intelligence agency like a university?”
• “How do students, devoted to study, find either the time or the money to stage so costly a performance?” 

Many of the questions asked way back in 1929 continue to resurface today, and many of them have eventually ended up seeking answers in court. The first case of note came in the 1950s, when the widow of Fort Lewis football player Ray Dennison took the college all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court in an effort to collect a death benefit after he was killed playing football. She lost the case, but future generations would have more success and have slowly whittled away at arguments against paying athletes. 

The most noticeable victory for athletes occurred in 2019, when California Governor, Gavin Newsom, signed legislation effectively allowing college athletes in the state to earn compensation for the use of their likeness, sign endorsement deals, and hire agents to represent them.

The court fights between college athletes and the NCAA continue today—while not exactly about payment, a case regarding whether or not schools can offer athletes tens of thousands of dollars in education benefits such as computers, graduate scholarships, tutoring, study abroad, and internships was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2021. A decision is expected in June 2021. 

There are a number of great reasons to pay college athletes, many of which will not only improve the lives of student-athletes, but also improve the product on the field and in the arena. 

College Athletes Deserve to Get Paid

In 2019, the NCAA reported $18.9 billion in total athletics revenue. This money is used to finance a variety of paid positions that support athletics at colleges and universities, including administrators, directors, coaches, and staff, along with other employment less directly tied to sports, such as those in marketing and media. The only people not receiving a paycheck are the stars of the show: the athletes. 

A testament to the disparate allocation of funds generated by college sports, of the $18.9 billion in athletics revenue in 2019, $3.6 billion went toward financial aid for student-athletes, and $3.7 billion was used for coaches’ compensation. A February 2020 USA Today article found that the average total pay for Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) college football head coaches in 2020-21 was $2.7 million. The highest-paid college football coach—the University of Alabama’s Nick Saban—earns $9.3 million a year and is the highest-paid public employee in the country. He is not alone, college coaches dominate the list of public employees with the largest salaries. 

If there’s money to provide college coaches with lavish seven-figure salaries (especially at public institutions), why shouldn’t there be funds to pay college athletes? 

Vital Support for Athletes 

A 2011 study published by the National College Players Association (NCPA) found that an overwhelming number of students on full athletics scholarships live below the federal poverty line—85% of athletes who live on campus and 86% athletes who live off-campus. “Full scholarship” itself is a misnomer; the same study found that the average annual scholarship for FBS athletes on “full” scholarships was actually $3,222. Find out more information about athletic scholarships . 

Paying student-athletes would help eliminate the need for these student-athletes to take out loans, burden their families for monetary support, or add employment to their already busy schedules. The NCAA limits in-season practice time to 20 hours a week, but a 2008 NCAA report shows that in-season student-athletes commonly spent upward of 30 and 40 hours a week engaged in “athletic activities.” 

Encouraged to Stay in College Longer

A report produced by the NCPA and Drexel University estimated the average annual fair market value of big-time college football and men’s basketball players between 2011 and 2015 was $137,357 and $289,031, respectively, and concluded that football players only receive about 17% of their fair market value, while men’s basketball players receive approximately 8% of theirs.

If colleges paid athletes even close to their worth, they would provide an incentive for the athletes to stay in college and earn degrees, rather than leaving college for a paycheck. This would also help keep top talents playing for college teams, improve the level of competition, and potentially lead to even higher revenue. On a side note, this would incentivize athletes to complete their degree, making them more employable after the end of their athletic career. 

Limit Corruption 

Just because there are rules prohibiting the compensation of college athletes doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, and over the years there have been numerous scandals. For example, in 2009, six ex-University of Toledo players were indicted in a point-shaving scheme , and in 2010, Reggie Bush returned his Heisman Trophy after allegations that he was given hundreds of thousands of dollars from sports agents while he played for USC.  

Paying college athletes will likely not totally eliminate corruption from college sports, but putting athletes in a less-precarious financial position would be a good step toward avoiding external influence, especially when you consider some of the players involved in the University of Toledo point-shaving scandal were paid as little as $500. 

It’s a Job (and a Dangerous One) 

As mentioned before, college athletes can put in upward of 40 hours a week practicing, training, and competing—being a “student-athlete” is a challenge when you’re devoting full-time hours to athletics. A New York Times study found a 0.20-point difference in average GPA between recruited male athletes and non-athletes. The difference is less pronounced among females, with non-athletes averaging a 3.24 GPA and recruited women athletes at 3.18.

It’s not just the time commitment that playing college athletics puts on student-athletes, it’s the risk to their health. A 2009-2010 CDC report found that more than 210,000 injuries are sustained by NCAA student-athletes each year. Full athletic scholarships are only guaranteed a year at a time, meaning student-athletes are one catastrophic injury away from potentially losing their scholarship. That is to say nothing of the lasting effects of an injury, like head traumas , which made up 7.4% of all injuries in college football players between 2004 and 2009.

Discover your chances at hundreds of schools

Our free chancing engine takes into account your history, background, test scores, and extracurricular activities to show you your real chances of admission—and how to improve them.

Why College Athletes Should Not Be Paid

There are a lot of great reasons why college athletes should be paid, but there are also some compelling reasons why college athletes should not be paid—and why not paying athletes is actually good for both the institutions and athletes. 

Compensation Conundrum 

One of the most common reasons cited against paying college players is compensation. Will all college athletes get compensated equally? For example, will the star quarterback receive the same amount as the backup catcher on the softball team? A 2014 CNBC article estimated that Andrew Wiggins, a University of Kansas forward (and soon-to-be first-overall draft pick), had a fair market value of around $1.6 million.

Similarly, will compensation take into account talent? Will the All-American point guard get the same amount as the captain of the swim team? In all likelihood, paying college athletes will benefit big-time, revenue-generating sports and hurt less popular sports. 

Eliminate Competitive Balance 

According to the NCAA , in 2019, the 65 Power Five schools exceeded revenue by $7 million, while all other Division I colleges had a $23 million deficit between expenses and revenue. If college athletes were to get paid, then large, well-funded schools such as those of the Power Five would be best positioned to acquire top talent and gain a competitive advantage. 

From a student’s point of view, paying college athletes will alter their college experience. No longer would fit, college, university reputation, and values factor into their college decisions—rather, choices would be made simply based on who was offering the most money. 

Professionalism vs. the Classroom

There’s a feeling that paying college athletes sends the wrong message and incentivizes them to focus on athletics instead of academics, when the reality is that very few college athletes will go on to play sports professionally. Just 1.6% of college football players will take an NFL field. NCAA men’s basketball players have even slimmer odds of playing in a major professional league ( 1.2% ), while the chances of a professional career are particularly grim for women basketball players, at a mere 0.8% . 

Although the odds of a college athlete turning pro are low, the probability of them earning a degree is high, thanks in part to the academic support athletes are given. According to data released by the NCAA, 90% of Division I athletes enrolled in 2013 earned a degree within six years. 

It Will End Less-Popular, Unprofitable Sports 

If colleges and universities pay their athletes, there is a fear that resources will only go to popular, revenue-generating sports. Programs like football and men’s basketball would likely benefit greatly, but smaller, unprofitable sports such as gymnastics, swimming and diving, tennis, track and field, volleyball, and wrestling could find themselves at best cash-strapped and, at the worst, cut altogether. 

It’s just not less-popular sports that paying athletes could threaten—women’s programs could also find themselves in the crosshairs of budget-conscious administrators. Keep in mind, it was just in March 2021 that the NCAA made national news for its unequal treatment of the men’s and women’s NCAA basketball tournaments. 

Financial Irresponsibility 

Former ESPN, and current FOX Sports, personality Colin Cowherd made news in 2014 when he voiced a popular argument against paying college athletes: financial irresponsibility. In Cowherd’s words:

“I don’t think paying all college athletes is great… Not every college is loaded, and most 19-year-olds [are] gonna spend it—and let’s be honest, they’re gonna spend it on weed and kicks! And spare me the ‘they’re being extorted’ thing. Listen, 90 percent of these college guys are gonna spend it on tats, weed, kicks, Xboxes, beer and swag. They are, get over it!”

A look at the professional ranks bolsters Cowherd’s argument about athletes’ frivolous spending. According to CNBC , 60% of NBA players go broke within five years of departing the league and 78% of former NFL players experience financial distress two years after retirement.

Writing an Essay on This? Where to Get Your Essay Edited for Free

Writing an essay on whether college athletes should or shouldn’t be paid? CollegeVine can help! Our peer review tool allows you to receive feedback and learn the strengths and weaknesses of your essay for free.  

Looking for more debate, speech, or essay topics? Check out these other CollegeVine articles for ideas: 

• 52 Argumentative Essays Ideas that are Actually Interesting
• 52 Persuasive Speech Topics That Are Actually Engaging
• 60 Debate Topics for High Schoolers

Related CollegeVine Blog Posts

Find anything you save across the site in your account

Why N.C.A.A. Athletes Shouldn’t Be Paid

By Ekow N. Yankah

Two weeks ago, as Americans were settling into the harvest comfort of football Saturdays, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in the antitrust suit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The decision drew blood on both sides. The court sided with the players in affirming that the N.C.A.A. is not immune to antitrust regulation, but simultaneously reversed a lower-court ruling that would have granted former athletes as much as five thousand dollars a year in deferred compensation—essentially back pay—for the use of their images in video games and other commercial ventures. At the same time, the court required that the N.C.A.A. increase scholarship payouts to cover the full cost of college attendance, thus making mandatory an option that the N.C.A.A. first permitted a few years ago.

These legal niceties did very little to address the deeper question of fairness. The N.C.A.A. ideal of amateurism in college athletics has come to border on farce. In the highest-revenue sports—football and basketball—the argument in favor of paying players is so searingly obvious as to seem undeniable. These athletes collectively generate tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars annually for their schools. Many college coaches are the highest-paid public employees in their states—a five-million-dollar salary is no longer eye-popping—and that paycheck doesn’t include gifts from boosters, who will occasionally pay for a coach’s house to make sure that he stays happy.

But this understates the exploitation. The athletes in major football and men’s basketball programs are disproportionately black, many from poor and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. For too many of them, the N.C.A.A. is the only game in town. In some dispiriting cases, the students are so unprepared that academic failure seems inevitable. In worse cases still, their scholarships are cynically undermined by the schools themselves. Coaches steer students into empty classes (what one recent report from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill characterized as a “ shadow curriculum ”) or supply so-called academic support that amounts to cheating. It hardly seems coincidental, then, that sports with less African-American participation, such as baseball and hockey, maintain robust minor-league systems without the national gnashing of teeth.

And yet I believe that the drive to pay college athletes is a grave mistake—not because it misdiagnoses the disease but because it suggests that the only cure is to put the patient out of his misery. It fails, first of all, to recognize the value of sports as a part of education. This value can be seen in the countless student athletes, from gymnasts to softball players, who pour hours of work into training and competing with no hope of going pro. (Similarly, many of those in even the biggest sports show dedication long after it is clear that they will never be professionals.)

This value is again revealed in the fact that many N.C.A.A. teams are vastly more popular than their professional counterparts. My beloved Michigan Wolverines pack the Big House with more than a hundred thousand spectators each football Saturday; the Detroit Lions, meanwhile, do not. (I know, I know—it’s the Lions. That’s why their stadium is smaller.) Minor-league arenas attract even fewer spectators. Fans are not only seeking athletic excellence as such—the biggest and fastest players in descending order. Our connection to the athletes is deeper. These student athletes walk the same halls, have the same professors, and sweat the same midterms that we did, however long ago. At the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, where I once taught, the inscription on the statue of Alma Mater reads, “To thy happy children of the future, those of the past send greetings.” It’s easy to dismiss that sentiment as saccharine, but it gets at an important truth: we are embedded in our cultures and social groups, and we revel in their excellence.

Paying student athletes erodes that association. If a high-school football prodigy reported that he chose Michigan not for its academic quality, tradition, or beautiful campus but because it outbid all other suitors, a connection to the university’s values would be lost. This is not naïve idealism. Auburn fans still bristle at accusations that Cam Newton auctioned them his services; prideful Michigan fans still smart over the sanctions surrounding Chris Webber, and over stinging comments intimating that he might just as well have attended a rival school. These episodes reveal what happens when college sports are reduced to a market; that this occurs all too often already is no reason to surrender to it.

The law plays a critical role here, and the Ninth Circuit’s ruling can be a constructive step. It recognizes that the N.C.A.A. is subject to antitrust regulation—unlike, say, Major League Baseball —and refuses to put a monetary value on college sports. In the future, Congress could, through antitrust and commerce legislation, promote a more just landscape in college and professional sports. Professional leagues, in particular, could be encouraged to invest more seriously in their minor-league programs—the N.B.A. Development League is at least the right idea—and drop the relevant age restrictions. This would mean that the extraordinary few could go pro out of high school, and some other highfliers, could enter the developmental leagues, paid whatever the market will bear. College sports might well lose some spectacular stars, but the stars alone were never really the point.

None of this would be easy to accomplish, of course, given the money that is at stake, and there would be casualties. Some of the players who might at least have been exposed to college would forgo it entirely. We might lose the story of the exceptional athlete, often poor and dark-skinned, who goes to school solely to play sports but then sees the world widen before him. Nor should we imagine that those who opt for the developmental leagues have made it; minor-league baseball and the lower tiers of European soccer remind us how thankless and poorly compensated such a life can be. But this is no less true for those who skip college to pursue music or theatre, and, more to the point, there is no reason to think that we wouldn’t hear stories of intellectual discovery among slightly less athletically gifted athletes from the same streets. Even if we cannot save sports (or music, or theatre) from its high-risk nature, we can go some way toward making sure that a few élite college programs are not unduly feeding off it.

At sports bars, when I hear people dismiss these (or other) ideas for preserving college amateurism, I realize that it’s not simply a question of their being overwhelmed by the practical difficulties involved. It is, rather, another manifestation of that corrosive American belief that anything that has value must also have a price. The recent ruling, though, hints at a path ahead, a way to cheer for our student athletes without being held hostage to money, exploitation, racism, or cynicism.

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Ian Crouch

By Mary Pilon

By Sinéad O’Sullivan

College Athletes Should Not Be Paid Argumentative Essay Example

So the question has been going on for years now, and it’s still a hot debate even today. Should college athletes be paid?  According to America, 51% of people in 2020 believe these athletes should be paid for their performance while in college. However, they are wrong because these athletes are already given many opportunities other students will not get, along with they will preform differently if they were getting paid. 

The first reason why college athletes shouldn’t be paid is because it would effect their gameplay while on and off the field. Students looking to go pro aren’t playing college sports for money. While that may be the reason they want to play and succeed, when in college they aren’t getting paid. According to the second text, It’s Time to Pay College Athletes, it states, “Most scholarships are revokable, so if an athlete doesn’t perform well on the field, he can, in a sense, be fired from college.” So, this shows us the instead of playing for money and fame, they are playing for their lives and future if the game. Each time an athlete steps onto the court or field, they preform their hardest and try their best to get into the professional level so they CAN be paid in the professional league. Also, according to John Rowady, president of sports marketing firm rEvolution (who is much more familiar with the situation), states he believes, “Paying the players as professionals carries a big risk of the public quickly tuning out. It would create a massive unknown, you have to wonder if it would change the whole dynamic of what it means to be a student-athlete.” And in this, he is telling us what the National Collegiate Athletic Association [NCAA] won’t. They don’t want to pay their athletes because it could change the entire way their organization works. It means something to be a student athlete, and one of those things means to not be paid. That is the end goal for these athletes. 

The second reason why college athletes shouldn’t be paid kinda ties with the first, they have more benefits than the average college student. College athletes earn scholarships, they are given many more opportunities, and they are given the supplies to help them succeed. According to the forth text, There’s No Crying in College: The Case Against Paying College Athletes, it says that, “College athletes are already being paid with an athletic scholarship that is worth between $20–$50,000 per year. Oh, and that does not even begin to factor in the medical and travel expenses, free gear, top-notch coaching, unlimited use of elite athletic facilities and a national stage to audition for a job in the professional ranks.” This shares the idea that student athletes are already getting many more benefits than the average student. They are getting scholarships, free health and travel expenses, gear and so much more. There is no need to be paying them when they are already getting top care. It’s nonsensical. Also, in the same text, John Rowady expresses his opinion on this matter. “They perform in a high profile environment, and gain access to incredible networks of people,” says Rowady. For those who aren’t pro material: study. Your education is free, remember.” He tells us that even if the student athlete is not pro material yet, they are still getting a free education and they should jump on these opportunities because not a lot of people get these chances. 

Finally, the third and final reason college athletes should not be paid is because not every student would be getting paid. Only certain schools and sports depending on how much revenue they get from their season. In the second text it states that, “Not every school would—or could—participate. Only the 60 or so schools in the power conferences, which have the football and basketball revenues to support such payments, would likely even consider such an option.” Only the really popular college sports, like football and basketball would eligible to even pay their athletes because of the revenue they bring in. Other sports like hockey and soccer don’t make as much so they wouldn’t have the chance to pay their students. 

So, after all of the research, it is clear that college athletes should not be paid. For the reasons above and many more. And while one may try and argue that the amount of revenue the NCAA makes, they could split it amongst the students. But the research shows that even if they did this, not all schools and players would be paid. The gear, medical and travel expenses, and more would no longer be available to them. What they have now will be completely changed if they got paid. No matter how many protests or people agree on the matter. The NCAA will not be paying their student athletes because of this. It would change the corse of college sports forever.

Related Samples

• A Personal Development Progress Essay Example
• Future Dream Reflective Essay Sample
• Keys to Academic Success Essay Example
• University and College Should Be Free Essay Example
• Argumentative Essay: Cell Phones Should Not Be Allowed in School
• Should College and University Be Free Argumentative Essay
• The Power of an Individual Theme in Literature Essay Example
• Essay Sample on Competitive Sports: When Fun Becomes Forceful
• Dress Codes in The Eustace High School Essay Example
• Dreams On The History Lesson

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

The Aspen Institute

©2024 The Aspen Institute. All Rights Reserved

• 0 Comments Add Your Comment

The History Behind the Debate Over Paying NCAA Athletes

April 23, 2018  • Jon Solomon

The Aspen Institute Sports & Society Program held a conversation May 1 in Washington, DC titled “Future of College Sports: Reimagining Athlete Pay.” The discussion was livestreamed at as.pn/collegesportsfuture. The Aspen Institute discussion explored the implications if NCAA athletes could be paid by outside entities for use of their names, images, and likenesses, like any college student.

While speaking at the Aspen Institute in 2016, NCAA president Mark Emmert raised concerns that University of Texas swimmer Joseph Schooling had recently received a $740,000 bonus from Singapore for winning a gold medal at the 2016 Olympics. Schooling didn’t just win gold; he was Singapore’s first Olympic gold medalist and beat the great Michael Phelps.

This payment was perfectly permissible under NCAA rules, which since 2001 have allowed US Olympians to compete in college while pocketing tens of thousands of dollars (and sometimes six figures) from the United States Olympic Committee for winning gold, silver, or bronze. The NCAA added an exception in 2015 to also allow international athletes to receive bonuses.

Still, a college swimmer making nearly three-quarters of a million dollars concerned some NCAA members because, Emmert said, “that’s a little different than 15 grand for the silver medal for the US of A. … The members at that time hadn’t anticipated this phenomenon of like the Singaporean kid getting paid a very large amount.”

Never mind that NCAA rules allow two-sport athletes to be paid professionals in one sport while competing in a different college sport, such as Kyle Parker’s $1.4 million baseball signing bonus while serving as Clemson’s quarterback in 2010. Or that tennis players can receive up to $10,000 per year in prize money (and additional cash on a per-event basis) before or during college. Or that college football players can receive bowl gifts up to $550 in value, which can involve players selecting high-tech electronics from a gift suite or receiving a Visa gift card. Or that schools have student-assistance funds to help athletes financially, including paying five-figure insurance policies for elite athletes who want to protect their professional futures.

Emmert’s description of his membership’s concerns about the swimming bonus reflects the never-ending definition of NCAA amateurism. Amateurism is whatever the NCAA says amateurism is at any particular moment.

As US District Judge Claudia Wilken wrote in her 2014 ruling in the Ed O’Bannon v. NCAA antitrust lawsuit case against the NCAA over the commercialized use of players’ names, images and likenesses: “The association’s current rules demonstrate that, even today, the NCAA does not necessarily adhere to a single definition of amateurism.”

The challenges are adding up for the NCAA both in the courtroom and in the court of public opinion. Speaking at a 2017 meeting of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, Emmert released internal NCAA polling showing that among all Americans, 79 percent say major universities value money ahead of college athletes.

“I can’t think of anything 79 percent of Americans agree to,” Emmert said, “but they agree to that.”

Such is the state of college sports. How America’s college sports system got here – the only country in the world to attach a highly-commercialized, multibillion-dollar industry to higher education, thus resulting in ongoing legal challenges and public criticism – is a long story. Three key events help trace the journey.

1. Why NCAA athletes are called student-athletes

The term “student-athlete” is ingrained in the college sports vernacular. NCAA-organized press conferences involve a moderator seeking questions for any of the “student-athletes,” a term that historically comes to define the NCAA’s perceived moral authority and its justification for existence.

It’s a term rooted in legal calculations. Walter Byers, the NCAA’s first executive director, created “student-athlete” in the 1950s to help the NCAA fight against workmen’s compensation insurance claims for injured football players.

“The student-athlete was a term used to try to offset these tendencies for state agencies or other governmental departments to consider a grant-in-aid holder” to be an employee, Byers said in court testimony during the 1990s. Soon, the term “student-athlete” became embedded in all NCAA rules and interpretations.

“Student-athlete” first surfaced when the widow of Ray Dennison, who died from a head injury in 1955 while playing in Colorado for the Fort Lewis A&M Aggies, filed for workmen’s compensation death benefits. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with the defendant that Dennison’s widow was not eligible for benefits because the college was “not in the football business.”

“The term student-athlete was deliberately ambiguous,” Pulitzer Prize-winning author Taylor Branch wrote in The Atlantic in 2011. “College players were not students at play (which might understate their athletic obligations), nor were they just athletes in college (which might imply they were professionals). That they were high-performance athletes meant they could be forgiven for not meeting the academic standards of their peers; that they were students mean they did not have to be compensated, ever, for anything more than the cost of their studies. Student-athlete became the NCAA’s signature term, repeated constantly in and out of courtrooms.”

Athletes may be receiving degrees, but many examples show that pockets of athletes are not receiving a quality education.

The student-athlete defense helped the NCAA win – and avoid – numerous liability cases through the years. The most notable win was a lawsuit brought by former Texas Christian University (TCU) running back Kent Waldrep, who was paralyzed in a 1974 football game against the University of Alabama. TCU stopped paying his medical bills after nine months and the Waldrep family coped for years on charity.

Shortly after NCAA Division I schools began carrying catastrophic insurance for football players in 1991, Waldrep sued. He claimed he was an employee of TCU at the time of his injury and covered by workers compensation laws. Waldrep initially won $70 a week for life and medical expenses dating to the accident, but TCU’s insurance carrier appealed.

Finally, in 2000, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Waldrep was not an employee because he and TCU intended for him to participate in sports as a student. As part of its decision, the Texas Supreme Court wrote that a basic purpose of the NCAA was to make the student-athlete an integral part of the student body, and cited the definition of an amateur student-athlete from the NCAA bylaws: “one who engaged in athletics for the education, physical, mental, and social benefits he derives therefrom, and to whom athletics is an avocation.”

The power of the student-athlete label has played out in legal circles and in the public narrative. Today, the NCAA promotes that more than 460,000 student-athletes compete in 24 sports per year, and more than eight in 10 student-athletes will earn a bachelor’s degree. The value of a college degree is viewed very favorably by many Americans, especially as tuition costs continue to skyrocket that causes students to carry college-loan debt well into adulthood.

Yet the money keeps growing in college sports. The combined revenue for the five major conferences (SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, Pac-12) increased by 266 percent from 2005-15, according to the Knight Commission. In 2015, the 53 public schools from the five major conferences paid their football coaching staffs (530 individuals) a combined $405.5 million, compared to $179.8 million in scholarships to their football players (4,979 individuals).

In recent years, the NCAA changed some rules to allow new benefits for athletes. Schools can expand the value of athletic scholarships to include cash stipends of a couple thousand dollars to cover athletes’ full cost of attendance. The NCAA now lets schools provide unlimited meals to athletes. The Pac-12 in 2014 became the first conference to guarantee athletes who are injured in college competition will have medical expenses covered up to four years by the school; the other four major conferences recently agreed to a minimum two-year standard for medical expenses covered after college.

But the criticism for the NCAA hasn’t subsided. The NCAA’s academic mission has increasingly been called into question. Athletes may be receiving degrees, but many examples show that pockets of athletes are not receiving a quality education. Some of them essentially major in eligibility – that is, they take (and are sometimes directed to) easier majors/courses in order to stay on the field.

The most glaring example occurred when the University of North Carolina was found by outside parties to have organized fake classes that enabled dozens of athletes to gain and maintain their eligibility. In a ruling last year that caused considerable confusion and frustration among NCAA members, the NCAA did not penalize North Carolina. The NCAA said no association rules were broken because the fraudulent classes were not available exclusively to athletes; other students had access to the courses, too. An independent report commissioned by North Carolina found that of the 3,100 students who took the fake classes over 18 years, 47.4 percent were athletes.

The North Carolina scandal also has played out in state and federal court, where the NCAA argued that it “did not voluntarily assume a legal duty to ensure the academic integrity of courses offered by its member institutions.” The NCAA enforcement model “creates no legal duty to prevent NCAA members from violating NCAA rules,” the association wrote.

North Carolina avoided NCAA penalties by essentially arguing that the NCAA should stay out of irregularities in college courses. This caused many critics to say that the NCAA must decide whether it’s going to continue to be involved in other academic matters, such as:

• Approving or withholding initial NCAA eligibility for players based on their high school transcript and curriculum
• Progress toward degree requirements for college athletes to stay eligible
• Penalties against schools, including postseason bans, if individual teams don’t meet Academic Progress Rate benchmarks showing their players are progressing toward a degree

“Maybe we’ve just reached the point where if a university is going to cheat academically, the public needs to look to the university and university leadership and say, ‘Does winning mean that much to you?’” retired North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr, co-counsel in a lawsuit against the NCAA involving the North Carolina scandal, told CBSSports.com in 2016. “Instead, they turn to this outside organization with inconsistent standards and limited resources.”

If the NCAA ever removed itself entirely from academics and became solely an organizer of sporting events, that could pose a significant threat to the association’s current nonprofit model. The entire enterprise is designed around the notion that providing access to an education is sufficient compensation to players for their participation in a multibillion-dollar industry.

After all, the NCAA tells us, these players are student-athletes.

2. 1984 Supreme Court decision shifted the power to conferences

Perhaps more than anyone else, the late Supreme Court Justice Byron “Whizzer” White saw the challenges coming for the NCAA. White essentially predicted so much of this – the commercialization, the defections for TV cash, the NCAA’s struggles to protect amateurism – when he wrote the dissenting opinion in the landmark NCAA v. Oklahoma Board of Regents case that ended the NCAA’s monopoly over college football television contracts.

“By mitigating what appears to be a clear failure of the free market to serve the ends and goals of higher education,” White wrote in 1984, “the NCAA ensures the continued availability of a unique and valuable product, the very existence of which might well be threatened by unbridled competition in the economic sphere.”

The NCAA once controlled football television – who got the exposure on TV and how the money was distributed to schools. The University of Oklahoma and University of Georgia sued to change the power structure. An appellate court and the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision that the NCAA’s control over football TV contracts was illegal.

The Supreme Court handed down a 7-2 decision against the NCAA. The only justice joining White in dissension was William Rehnquist. White warned that the court was making a mistake by “subjugating the NCAA’s educational goals … to the purely competitive commercialism of [an] ‘every school for itself’ approach to television contract bargaining.”

After the decision, schools began merging into larger conferences and ended the once-common practice of independent status. Conferences soon held the power in football – and as football’s popularity grew in America, the sport became the financial engine for athletic departments. Conferences began to negotiate lucrative media rights deals, stage championship games and secure their own bowl games, and ultimately produce college football’s first national championship format.

Today, the conferences now stage the College Football Playoff, which is worth about $470 million annually. Many of them have their own television network. During fiscal year 2017, the SEC distributed on average $41 million to each of its 14 universities, according to USA Today. Ten years ago, the SEC average payout per school was $11 million. The Big Ten Conference is projected to exceed $50 million in its average payout.

There’s another legacy of the 1984 ruling: Buried within the NCAA’s landmark loss was a Supreme Court gift that kept on giving for 30 more years. In the middle of the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens dropped in limited language that states “athletes must not be paid”:

“… moreover, the NCAA seeks to market a particular brand of football – college football. The identification of this ‘product’ with an academic tradition differentiates college football from and makes it more popular than professional sports to which it might otherwise be comparable, such as, for example, minor league baseball. In order to preserve the character and quality of the ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class, and the like.”

There were just three sentences in a 19,000-word brief. The topic (player compensation) had nothing to do with the issue at hand (football TV contracts). No one testified about player compensation, and Stevens didn’t appear to give much rigorous thought to what he was writing.

Stevens didn’t define what “paid” means. Does that mean salaries from the school, endorsements from outside entities, or checks written as part of scholarship agreements?

Stevens didn’t explain what “required to attend class” means. Does that mean a part-time student or full-time student, or perhaps attend only one class? How would Stevens interpret “required to attend class” today when compared to how frequently NCAA athletes miss school to travel to play in games? In a 2015 survey, Division I men’s basketball players said they spent an average of 1.7 days a week away from campus and missed 2.2 classes. The Wall Street Journal found that eight top-25 men’s basketball teams in 2018 traveled an average of more than 42 days during the season.

Though NCAA v. Oklahoma Board of Regents wasn’t about compensation for college athletes, Stevens’ five words – “athletes must not be paid” – became a valuable source for many NCAA legal victories in future years. That changed when the O’Bannon case challenged the NCAA’s restrictions preventing football and men’s basketball players from being paid for the licensing use of their names, images, and likenesses (NILs).

Wilken, the judge in O’Bannon v. NCAA , concluded that while NCAA v. Oklahoma Board of Regents “gives the NCAA ‘ample latitude’ to adopt rules preserving ‘the revered tradition of amateurism in college sports’ … it does not stand for the sweeping proposition that student-athletes must be barred, both during their college years and forever thereafter, from receiving any monetary compensation for the commercial use of their names, images and likenesses.”

Andy Coats, the lawyer for Oklahoma and Georgia in the 1984 Supreme Court case, said it was only a matter of time before players sought a slice of the TV pie.

“They’re saying, ‘Look, we’re generating this money either by our play or the fact you take my image and sell it, and it’s not fair,’” Coats told CBSSports.com in 2014.

The money grew too big. The time had come for legal challenges on behalf of the players.

Tom McMillen, who oversees the athletic director association for the NCAA’s largest division, sums up a critical question this way: If schools could pay players, who would athletic directors predominantly pay – the players or the coaches? Surveys show ADs don’t currently support constraining coaches’ salaries, McMillen said.

“The system has allowed coaches’ compensation to explode so it’s a fair question,” McMillen said. “If that hadn’t happened, I think the pressure on paying athletes would be far less today. You can’t have a market place where one side wins and another side doesn’t win. You can’t expect one side to be constrained forever. I said that in my book in 1991. I think it holds even more true today.”

3. Impact of Ed O’Bannon v. NCAA

The next chapter of challenges against the NCAA is still being written. The results will be based in part on the O’Bannon ruling – the legal precedent set, how college athletes are more cognizant of the money around them, and the public’s opinion about amateurism and what it even means.

The O’Bannon case ended up with victories for both sides. The plaintiffs won a decision that certain NCAA amateurism rules violate federal antitrust law. The court determined that those rules constituted an anti-competitive conspiracy by the NCAA schools and conferences to deny men’s basketball and football players monetary value for their NILs. This potentially leaves the NCAA vulnerable for more antitrust challenges.

On the other hand, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Wilken’s remedy to the violations: Allow schools, if they so desire, to pay players up to $5,000 per year while they are in college with payment coming after they leave school. Rejecting the remedy was a win for the NCAA. Today, the NCAA clings to a new definition of amateurism through the O’Bannon appellate decision, which tied educational expenses to athlete compensation.

“The difference between offering student-athletes education-related compensation and offering them cash sums untethered to educational expenses is not minor; it is a quantum leap,” two Ninth Circuit judges wrote in 2015.

Legal threats continue against the NCAA. Two lawsuits that challenge the NCAA’s current compensation limits for athletes continue – including the Martin Jenkins case led by attorney Jeffrey Kessler, who brought free agency to the NFL – envision an NCAA in which conferences and/or schools would be free to make their own independent determinations about how to fairly compensate athletes.

The ongoing NCAA college basketball scandal showed that under-the-table payments to players by coaches, financial advisors, and shoe companies are common in the sport.

Wilken, the judge in O’Bannon, recently ordered the lawsuits to trial starting Dec. 3. She essentially left the NCAA with only two arguments to use at trial: The notion that fans are drawn to college football and basketball “in part due to their perception of amateurism,” and the idea that “paying student-athletes would detract from the integration of academics and athletics in the campus community.” The results of the trial, and inevitable appeals, could dramatically reshape the NCAA.

According to McMillen, 79 percent of athletic directors in the NCAA’s highest football subdivision support players making money off their name for non-athletic related activities, and 26 percent favor giving players the right for athletic-related pursuits. Emmert, the NCAA president, has said the Olympic model – athletes receiving sponsor money in exchange for use of their name, image and likeness – is deserving of serious consideration inside the context of college sports.

“I hate to say this, I think the plaintiff lawyers are slowing this down,” McMillen said. “If you didn’t have a court case now, I think college sports could have addressed this. Now, the lawyers will say they’ve made progress because of the court cases. It’s what comes first – the chicken or the egg? But when a court case’s fundamental principle is tethered to education, it’s a slippery slope no one will touch right now. I think the ADs are more sympathetic to (players making money off their NIL) provided some of their concerns are addressed. They don’t want it to be an abusive recruiting tool.”

The NCAA’s history has been to legally fight most attempts to increase benefits for athletes. The NCAA fought two court cases over expanding the value of the traditional athletic scholarship to include additional money that covers miscellaneous costs of attending college. Now, thousands of NCAA athletes who received traditional scholarships, rather than the new cost-of-attendance version, will be compensated for the difference. Last year, the NCAA and 11 major conferences settled for $208.7 million in the Shawne Alston lawsuit, which was impacted by the O’Bannon decision.

The ongoing NCAA college basketball scandal brought by federal prosecutors reflected, not surprisingly, that under-the-table payments to players by coaches, financial advisors and shoe companies are common in the sport. Three criminal cases are tied to the FBI investigation, which has resulted in 10 arrests, including charges against assistant basketball coaches at Auburn, Oklahoma State, Arizona and Southern California.

According to a Yahoo! Sports report in February, federal documents show an underground recruiting operation that could create NCAA rules issues for at least 20 Division I basketball programs – including Duke, North Carolina, Texas, Kentucky, Michigan State, Southern California, and Alabama – and more than 25 players. The amounts of impermissible benefits reported by Yahoo! Sports for one sports agency ranged from $70 for a lunch with a player’s parents to tens of thousands of dollars and loans to a former North Carolina State player.

“These allegations, if true, point to systematic failures that must be fixed and fixed now if we want college sports in America,” Emmert said in a statement in February 2018. “Simply put, people who engage in this kind of behavior have no place in college sports. They are an affront to all those who play by the rules.”

Yet the reality is value does exist for some players above their athletic scholarship. That was highlighted in the O’Bannon case. A vice president of videogame maker Electronic Arts Sports testified that his company wants to pay players for the right to use their NILs in popular NCAA videogames that have been discontinued. EA Sports previously used the likeness of players without their permission, resulting in a $60 million settlement with plaintiffs. The average payout was expected to be around $1,600, with some players receiving several thousand dollars depending on how frequently their likeness appeared in the videogame.

A slight majority of American adults (52 percent) still believe a full scholarship is adequate compensation for a college athlete, according to a 2017 nationwide poll by The Washington Post and the University of Massachusetts Lowell. The racial divide was noteworthy: 54 percent of black Americans support paying NCAA athletes based on revenue they generate, whereas only 31 percent of white Americans support the concept.

Gaining public traction is the idea of allowing players to make money if their NIL is sold through merchandise (66 percent of Americans are in favor). A racial gap exists here as well: 89 percent of blacks say athletes should be paid for use of their NIL, while 60 percent of whites are in favor.

Some proponents of paying players argue for a free market that would reallocate the money flowing to coaches, administrators and facility upgrades to the athletes. Others argue for Congress to provide a limited antitrust exemption for college athletic departments so they could impose caps on coach pay and other athletic spending in exchange for athletes to be guaranteed more benefits, including money through use of their NIL.

“My own personal view: There could be ways to do licensing with players and make sure the companies are legit,” McMillen said. “You could set up an independent, voluntary clearinghouse where the licensing staff would negotiate on behalf of all the student-athletes, much like they do in the pros. In taking this step to help elite student-athletes, like Olympic athletes can do today, it might help reduce the ever-growing pressure for universities to pay student-athletes, and that would undermine the whole college sports model.”

In 2014, Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick made the rare public case by an AD that college sports could manage group licensing for athletes to be paid immediately. He argued that the NCAA’s problems stem from years of rules that differentiate athletes from the general student body, such as not allowing players to make money off their own name.

“You could have a group-licensing approach and say, OK, this group licensee can do a deal with EA Sports for student-athlete image and likeness, and we’ll go to EA Sports and negotiate it for all of the student-athletes,” Swarbrick told CBSSports.com. “Here’s what it’s worth if you wear the jersey in the EA Sports video(game) and here’s what it’s worth if you don’t. You get a market read on it and you distribute it based on the way all group licenses work.”

Nothing in the NCAA’s history suggests it would proactively take such an approach. Allowing players to be paid by outside entities might require a court ruling, federal legislation and/or a player boycott. Big 12 Conference commissioner Bob Bowlsby predicted in 2015 that the day will come when players decide not to play in a major college sporting event.

The Olympics once passionately believed in the evolving definition of amateurism. Paid professional athletes were not allowed. During the 1980s, the move toward professionalism gradually gained full steam sport by sport over several years. The change was aided in part by the suspicion that athletes from some Eastern Bloc nations were already professionals anyway through full-time support and training by their governments.

The public hasn’t stopped watching the Olympics with professionals. Making money through endorsements while being good at a sport doesn’t seem to hurt interest in the Olympics, which once had the most stringent definition of amateurism. In 1960, athletes who simply had decided to turn pro were no longer amateurs under Olympic rules.

College sports is gradually changing amateurism definitions, too. Times change, as reflected by some NCAA members’ concerns in 2016 about allowing an Olympian to get paid $740,000 while still competing in college. Some money is OK, in the view of NCAA members, but where’s the limit?

If swimmers and gymnasts can be paid for winning at the Olympics, why not basketball and football players for other forms of outside compensation? If $740,000 is deemed too much for Schooling to accept from Singapore while swimming for the University of Texas, why would American swimmer Katie Ledecky making $115,000 from the Olympics be OK to swim at Stanford? And for that matter, since Ledecky made $115,000 from Olympic success, why did NCAA rules prevent her from making endorsement money and cause her to turn pro early?

Once a line has been crossed to pay athletes, what makes one amount acceptable and another unacceptable?

That’s NCAA amateurism – a floating definition that’s always evolving, consistently inconsistent, and forever under scrutiny.

Jon Solomon is editorial director of the Aspen Institute Sports & Society Program. He was an award-winning college sports reporter for 18 years, most recently at CBSSports.com.

Related Posts

April 17, 2023 Sports & Society Program

August 29, 2022 Tom Farrey

The best of the Institute, right in your inbox.

Sign up for our email newsletter

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

The Case for Paying College Athletes

The case against paying college athletes, the era of name, image, and likeness (nil) profiting, why should college athletes be paid, is it illegal for college athletes to get paid, what percentage of americans support paying college athletes, the bottom line, should college athletes be paid.

The Case For and Against

Should college athletes be able to make money from their sport? When the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) was founded in 1906, the organization’s answer was a firm “no,” as it sought to “ensure amateurism in college sports.”

Despite the NCAA’s official stance, the question has long been debated among college athletes, coaches, sports fans, and the American public. The case for financial compensation saw major developments in June 2021, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA cannot limit colleges from offering student-athletes “education-related benefits.”

In response, the NCAA issued an interim policy stating that its student-athletes were permitted to profit off their name, image, and likeness (NIL) , but not to earn a salary. This policy will remain in place until a more “permanent solution” can be found in conjunction with Congress.

Meanwhile, the landscape continues to shift, with new cases, decisions, and state legislation being brought forward. College athletes are currently permitted to receive “cost of attendance” stipends (up to approximately $6,000), unlimited education-related benefits, and awards. A 2023 survey found that 67% of U.S. adults favor paying college athletes with direct compensation.

Key Takeaways

• Despite the NCAA reporting nearly $1.3 billion in revenue in 2023, student-athletes are restricted to limited means of compensation.
• Although college sports regularly generate valuable publicity and billions of dollars in revenue for schools, even the highest-grossing college athletes tend to see only a small fraction of this.
• One argument for paying college athletes is the significant time commitment that their sport requires, which can impact their ability to earn income and divert time and energy away from academic work.
• Student-athletes may face limited prospects after college for a variety of reasons, including a high risk of injury, fierce competition to enter professional leagues, and lower-than-average graduation rates.
• The developing conversation around paying college athletes must take into account the practical challenges of determining and administering compensation, as well as the potential impacts on players and schools.

There are numerous arguments in support of paying college athletes, many of which focus on ameliorating the athletes’ potential risks and negative impacts. Here are some of the typical arguments in favor of more compensation.

Financial Disparity

College sports generate billions of dollars in revenue for networks, sponsors, and institutions (namely schools and the NCAA). There is considerable money to be made from advertising and publicity, historically, most of which has not benefited those whose names, images, and likenesses are featured within it.

Of the 2019 NCAA Division I revenues ($15.8 billion in total), only 18.2% was returned to athletes through scholarships, medical treatment, and insurance. Additionally, any other money that goes back to college athletes is not distributed equally. An analysis of players by the National Bureau of Economic Research found major disparities between sports and players.

Nearly 50% of men’s football and basketball teams, the two highest revenue-generating college sports, are made up of Black players. However, these sports subsidize a range of other sports (such as men’s golf and baseball, and women’s basketball, soccer, and tennis) where only 11% of players are Black and which also tend to feature players from higher-income neighborhoods. In the end, financial redistribution between sports effectively funnels resources away from students who are more likely to be Black and come from lower-income neighborhoods toward those who are more likely to be White and come from higher-income neighborhoods.

Exposure and Marketing Value

Colleges’ finances can benefit both directly and indirectly from their athletic programs. The “Flutie Effect,” named after Boston College quarterback Doug Flutie, is an observed phenomenon whereby college applications and enrollments seem to increase after an unexpected upset victory or national football championship win by that college’s team. Researchers have also suggested that colleges that spend more on athletics may attract greater allocations of state funding and boost private donations to institutions.

Meanwhile, the marketing of college athletics is valued in the millions to billions of dollars. In 2023, the NCAA generated nearly $1.3 billion in revenue, $945.1 million of which came from media rights fees. In 2022, earnings from March Madness represented nearly 90% of the NCAA’s total revenue. Through this, athletes give schools major exposure and allow them to rack up huge revenues, which argues for making sure the players benefit, too.

Opportunity Cost, Financial Needs, and Risk of Injury

Because participation in college athletics represents a considerable commitment of time and energy, it necessarily takes away from academic and other pursuits, such as part-time employment. In addition to putting extra financial pressure on student-athletes, this can impact athletes’ studies and career outlook after graduation, particularly for those who can’t continue playing after college, whether due to injury or the immense competition to be accepted into a professional league.

Earning an income from sports and their significant time investment could be a way to diminish the opportunity cost of participating in them. This is particularly true in case of an injury that can have a long-term effect on an athlete’s future earning potential.

Arguments against paying college athletes tend to focus on the challenges and implications of a paid-athlete system. Here are some of the most common objections to paying college athletes.

Existing Scholarships

Opponents of a paid-athlete system tend to point to the fact that some college athletes already receive scholarships , some of which cover the cost of their tuition and other academic expenses in full. These are already intended to compensate athletes for their work and achievements.

Financial Implications for Schools

One of the main arguments against paying college athletes is the potential financial strain on colleges and universities. The majority of Division I college athletics departments’ expenditures actually surpass their revenues, with schools competing for players by hiring high-profile coaches, constructing state-of-the-art athletics facilities, and offering scholarships and awards.

With the degree of competition to attract talented athletes so high, some have pointed out that if college athletes were to be paid a salary on top of existing scholarships, it might unfairly burden those schools that recruit based on the offer of a scholarship.

‘Amateurism’ and the Challenges of a Paid-Athlete System

Historically, the NCAA has sought to promote and preserve a spirit of “amateurism” in college sports, on the basis that fans would be less interested in watching professional athletes compete in college sports, and that players would be less engaged in their academic studies and communities if they were compensated with anything other than scholarships.

The complexity of determining levels and administration of compensation across an already uneven playing field also poses a practical challenge. What would be the implications concerning Title IX legislation, for example, since there is already a disparity between male and female athletes and sports when it comes to funding, resources, opportunities, compensation, and viewership?

Another challenge is addressing the earnings potential of different sports (as many do not raise revenues comparable to high-profile sports like men’s football and basketball) or of individual athletes on a team. Salary disparities would almost certainly affect team morale and drive further competition between schools to bid for the best athletes.

In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA violated antitrust laws with its rules around compensation, holding that the NCAA’s current rules were “more restrictive than necessary” and that the NCAA could no longer “limit education-related compensation or benefits” for Division I football and basketball players.

In response, the NCAA released an interim policy allowing college athletes to benefit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL) , essentially providing the opportunity for players to profit off their personal brand through social media and endorsement deals. States then introduced their own rules around NIL, as did individual schools, whose coaches or compliance departments maintain oversight of NIL deals and the right to object to them in case of conflict with existing agreements.

Other court cases against the NCAA have resulted in legislative changes that now allow students to receive “cost of attendance” stipends up to a maximum of around $6,000 as well as unlimited education-related benefits and awards.

The future of NIL rules and student-athlete compensation remains to be seen. According to the NCAA, the intention is to “develop a national law that will help colleges and universities, student-athletes, and their families better navigate the name, image, and likeness landscape.” However, no timeline has been specified as of yet.

Common arguments in support of paying college athletes tend to focus on players’ financial needs, their high risk of injury, and the opportunity cost they face (especially in terms of academic achievement, part-time work, and long-term financial and career outlook). Proponents of paying college athletes also point to the extreme disparity between the billion-dollar revenues of schools and the NCAA and current player compensation.

Although the NCAA once barred student-athletes from earning money from their sport, legislation around compensating college athletes is changing. In 2021, the NCAA released an interim policy permitting college athletes to profit off their name, image, and likeness (NIL) through social media and endorsement and sponsorship deals. However, current regulations and laws vary by state.

In 2023, a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults found that 67% of respondents were in favor of paying college athletes with direct compensation. Sixty-four percent said they supported athletes’ rights to obtain employee status, and 59% supported their right to collectively bargain as a labor union .

Although the NCAA is under growing pressure to share its billion-dollar revenues with the athletes it profits from, debate remains around whether, how, and how much college athletes should be paid. Future policy and legislation will need to take into account the financial impact on schools and athletes , the value of exposure and marketing, pay equity and employment rights, pay administration, and the nature of the relationship between college athletes and the institutions they represent.

NCAA. “ History .”

Marquette Sports Law Review. “ Weakening Its Own Defense? The NCAA’s Version of Amateurism ,” Page 260 (Page 5 of PDF).

U.S. Supreme Court. “ National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston et al. ”

NCAA. “ NCAA Adopts Interim Name, Image and Likeness Policy .”

PBS NewsHour. “ Analysis: Who Is Winning in the High-Revenue World of College Sports? ”

Sportico. “ 67% of Americans Favor Paying College Athletes: Sportico/Harris Poll .”

Sportico. “ NCAA Took in Record Revenue in 2023 on Investment Jump .”

National Bureau of Economic Research. “ Revenue Redistribution in Big-Time College Sports .”

Appalachian State University, Walker College of Business. “ The Flutie Effect: The Influence of College Football Upsets and National Championships on the Quantity and Quality of Students at a University .”

Grand Canyon University. “ Should College Athletes Be Paid? ”

Flagler College Gargoyle. “ Facing Inequality On and Off the Court: The Disparities Between Male and Female Athletes .”

U.S. Department of Education. “ Title IX and Sex Discrimination .”

Congressional Research Service Reports. “ National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston and the Debate Over Student Athlete Compensation .”

NCSA College Recruiting. “ NCAA Name, Image, Likeness Rule .”

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

Paying college athletes is closer than ever. How could it work and what stands in the way?

Footballs stand ready before the Virginia Tech at Wake Forest NCAA college football game in Winston-Salem, N.C., Saturday Oct. 15, 2011. A settlement being discussed in an antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA and major college conferences could cost billions and pave the way for a new compensation model for college athletes. Credit: AP/Bob Leverone

The proposed settlement of a federal class-action antitrust lawsuit that has been approved by the NCAA and major college conferences would cost billions and pave the way for college athletes to get a cut of the revenue that has been flowing to their schools for years.

A judge must still accept the proposal, which can also be challenged by individual plaintiffs, and there are many questions about how this will work and whether it can withstand future legal scrutiny. But college sports is clearly pointed toward a revolutionary path that could have some of the wealthiest schools directly paying athletes to participate.

House vs. NCAA is a class-action federal lawsuit seeking damages for athletes who were denied the opportunity, going back to 2016, to earn money from the use of their name, image or likeness (NIL). The plaintiffs, including former Arizona State swimmer Grant House, filed the lawsuit in 2020 and also asked the court to rule that NIL compensation should include billions of dollars in media rights fees that go to the NCAA and the five wealthiest conferences (Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, Atlantic Coast and Southeastern), mostly for football and basketball.

WHO MADE THE CALL?

The presidential boards of the Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, SEC and Pac-12 all voted to approve the settlement this week as well as the NCAA Board of Governors. Lead attorneys on the House case include familiar NCAA foes Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler, who have previous victories in college athlete compensation cases on their records. They will now work with their plaintiff clients on next steps with the judge.

Morgan State's Anaya Hunte, left, celebrates with Mia Ewell (13) after making a catch during an NCAA college softball game against Duke, Friday, May 17, 2024, in Durham, N.C. Credit: AP/Ben McKeown

The settlement calls for the NCAA to pay nearly $2.8 billion in damages over 10 years, backed by insurance and withheld distributions that would have gone to 352 Division I member schools. Last year, NCAA revenue approached $1.3 billion and the association projects a steady rise in coming years, thanks mostly to increases baked into a television contract with CBS and Warner Bros. Discovery for the men's basketball tournament. A new, eight-year deal with ESPN worth $920 million for the Division I women's basketball tournament and other championship events takes effect in 2025.

The potential settlement could cost each school in the remaining power conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, SEC) about $300 million per year over 10 years, including as much as $21 million per year to pay a school's athletes. Administrators have warned that could lead to cuts for the so-called non-revenue sports familiar to fans who watch the Olympics.

“It’s the Olympic sports that would be in jeopardy,” Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne said during a March discussion on Capitol Hill. “That’s men and women. If you look at the numbers for us at the University of Alabama, with our 19 sports outside of football and men’s basketball, we lost collectively almost $40 million."

WHO GETS PAID GOING FORWARD?

Referees try to break up an altercation between Alabama and Auburn during the second half of an NCAA college football game, Saturday, Nov. 25, 2023, in Auburn, Ala. A settlement being discussed in an antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA and major college conferences could cost billions and pave the way for a new compensation model for college athletes. Credit: AP/Vasha Hunt

Presumably, the payments would start with the athletes in sports that produce most of the revenue: football and men's basketball players. Women's basketball is likely next in line, but athletes in all sports should expect to see some benefit — but probably not at all schools.

The proposal would allow schools to pay athletes, but not require it. Schools that don't rake in millions in TV revenue could pass and rely on NIL deals brokered in part by booster-backed collectives. Though how and if those organizations fit in a new system is murky at best.

There are also questions about whether the federal gender equity law Title IX would require equal funding for male and female athletes.

EMPLOYMENT AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Settling existing cases is only one step. A new system for compensating college athletes would be needed to avoid similar legal challenges in the future; for example, anything that looks like a cap on compensation by the major conferences could be ripe for another lawsuit.

The NCAA has been asking Congress for some kind of antitrust exemption or federal legislation for years, but the emphasis has shifted lately from regulating NIL compensation to keeping the athletes from being deemed employees.

A ruling from an NLRB regional director paved the way for members of the Dartmouth men's basketball team to vote to join a union after being deemed employees, and many have advocated for collective bargaining as a solution to college sports' antitrust exposure. It could take years to settle the are-athletes-employees question.

WHAT'S NEXT

The House case is being heard in the Northern District of California by U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken, who has already ruled against the NCAA in other landmark antitrust lawsuits. Wilken must approve the settlement, which is expected to cover at least two other antitrust lawsuits facing the NCAA. Another suit against the NCAA in Colorado remains separate, but could eventually be looped into the settlement.

In the meantime, schools will be trying to plan how revenue-sharing might work as college athletics continues its seismic shift from amateurism to a vastly different model.

Unlimited Digital Access Only 25¢ for 5 months

NCAA settlement a historic day for paying college athletes. What comes next?

Scott Van Pelt chimes in on the news that the NCAA and its five power conferences have agreed to allow schools to directly pay players for the first time in the 100-plus-year history of college sports. (1:22)

Nothing is easy in college sports.

And with the Power 5 conferences and NCAA board of governors voting Thursday to accept the settlement of three antitrust cases that create a new structure for the sport, the moment is layered in both historic change and looming ambiguity.

The more than $2.7 billion of back damages and a new revenue-sharing model that come with the settlement of House v. NCAA and two related antitrust cases mark a distinct pivot for college sports. Amateurism, long a fragile and fleeting notion in the billion-dollar college sports industry, is officially dead. College sports, long a fractured group of fiefdoms, came together in an attempt to save themselves, with the jarring sight of five power leagues and the NCAA together on a press release.

This is a necessary and important week for the business of college athletics, yet not a celebratory one for its leaders. It's a promising day for future athletes who are being compensated with revenue sharing expected to be more than $20 million per school.

And it's also a confusing week for the coaches and leaders on campus, who have no idea what the specific rules of engagement are moving forward.

There should be no trips to the chiropractor from self-congratulatory back pats for taking this step, as the business of college sports will remain messy. No one should be cheered for paying billions just to avoid paying additional billions.

The peace that NCAA and conference leaders hope they are purchasing with their billions in settlement money is seemingly tentative. While the settlement will make it harder for plaintiff attorneys to wield the threat of billion-dollar damages in the future, athletes will have options to keep challenging any restriction or cap on how they are paid. As the final yes votes were being collected this week, a separate federal case in Colorado -- Fontenot v. NCAA -- continued to march forward on its own track, leaving open the possibility that NCAA lawyers won't have time to catch their breath before fighting the next battle on capping athlete compensation.

The games on the fields and arenas of college sports remain wonderful, the television ratings in college football and the NCAA tournament for men's and women's basketball are all gangbusters. And the NCAA, behind decisive leadership from president Charlie Baker, appears to have bought increased relevance in the coming years by finding enough consensus to avoid a catastrophic financial loss from yet another court decision going against it.

But the reality of the culmination of votes on Thursday, which still need the approval of Judge Claudia Wilken, is that college leaders took the best bad option. Pay billions now and share the revenue or, lawyers predicted, lose a series of lawsuits, declare bankruptcy and start over.

How we got here is simple. As college sports roared from regional passion to national obsession through the 1990s and this century, NCAA leaders and college presidents clung to a business model that didn't pay the talent. (The coaches, not coincidentally, were compensated at significant levels because the players never commanded a salary.)

Just three years ago, the NCAA fought the notion of paying athletes a now-quaint $6,000 in academic-based awards all the way to the Supreme Court. So it's hard to overstate just how drastic the tenor change is surrounding college sports.

Somewhere along the way, as conference television networks formed, commissioner salaries boomed to $5 million a year -- for former Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, of all people -- and the television contracts rivaled professional sports', there was never a way to directly cut in the athletes. Until this week.

So what does this mean for college sports when revenue sharing comes as early as fall 2025? Where does this take us?

We've outlined the lingering questions that will need to be hammered out. Most of the decisions to this point have been guided by the NCAA, lawyers and commissioners, and there will be a point when the actual participants in the weeds of the sports -- the athletic directors and coaches -- have a voice in the process. Or at least they hope to.

Along with making it less financially appealing for plaintiff attorneys to challenge the NCAA in antitrust cases, college leaders are also hoping they can lay their new settlement at the feet of Congress as a show of good faith. In turn, they hope to spur some momentum for a federal law that gives them increased protection from lawsuits in the future. However, there are no guarantees the settlement will shake loose any votes on Capitol Hill, which has thus far been stagnant on NCAA-related legislation and will have most of its time occupied by November's election.

Without help from Congress, it will remain a bumpy road for the NCAA to enforce the kinds of rules it thinks are necessary to restore stability to college sports.

How does Title IX factor into the financial calculus? That looms as the biggest campus worry. How will rosters be constructed? Football coaches who have 130 players on their team -- 85 scholarships and 45 walk-ons -- are wondering if they need to cut a third of the roster with the expected inclusion of roster caps.

"This all is well intended, but I'll believe it when I see it," an industry source told ESPN. "There are three big issues looming that will determine how this goes: The Title IX strategy for the implementation of revenue distribution, enforcement issues surrounding residual NIL and how roster caps work."

If NIL remains outside athletic departments, as expected, who will police it? The NCAA's enforcement track record is nearly as poor as its legal record. Could there be someone -- perhaps a magistrate or special master appointed by Judge Wilken -- who is an arbiter of the interpretations of the settlement?

"You are going to need a new group to handle enforcement of NIL," another industry source said. "Not the NCAA, because the system is going to be completely different. An entity that looks like the NFL or NBA league office, because the issues that matter are different from the previous regulatory focus at the NCAA. It was all about amateurism. Now it's going to be much different, you effectively have a salary cap."

The problem with policing NIL is that separating deals based on endorsements from those that are thinly veiled payments for performance remains just as much of a subjective process as it has been during the past three years. It's unclear how any settlement terms will provide the tools schools need to shut down a thriving NIL market that is outside their direct control.

Athletic directors are facing the most significant decisions of their careers -- how do they find the money and slice it up? The only certainty is there will be unhappiness on campus, as the value of teams to their administrators will now include a dollar sign.

And that will come with much consternation, including the potential cutting of Olympic sports to help fund the roster of financial bell cows.

Be ready for a few months of ambiguity, as formal federal approval looms and then the real work of hammering out the details will begin.

Those are the questions being asked today by just about everyone in the industry. Coaches don't know how to recruit the Class of 2025, as the recruiting rules -- right down to how many players can be on the roster -- have yet to be determined.

Football players will go on official visits this month prior to their senior seasons and not know what to expect. Schools won't even know basic details like roster spots and available money.

So while history will come with the expected formalization of this settlement, the immediate future of what this looks like remains unclear. Which is fitting, as fixing decades of issues was always going to be a slog.

Because it remains true that nothing is ever easy in college sports.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

N.C.A.A. Athletes’ Pay Deal Raises Questions About Future of College Sports

The landmark settlement made many wonder what the reality — and impact — of revenue-sharing plans with college athletes would look like.

By David W. Chen ,  Jacey Fortin and Anna Betts

Brent Jacquette knows a thing or two about college sports. A former collegiate soccer player and coach in Pennsylvania who is now an executive at a consulting firm for athletic recruiting, he’s well aware of issues surrounding pay for college athletes.

But even for an industry veteran like Mr. Jacquette, the news of the N.C.A.A.’s staggering settlement in a class-action antitrust lawsuit on Thursday came as a surprise, with more than a little anxiety. The first words that came to mind, he said, were “trepidation” and “confusion.”

And he was not alone in feeling unsettled. Interviews, statements and social media posts mere hours after the settlement was announced showed that many were uncertain and concerned about what the future of collegiate sports holds.

“These are unprecedented times, and these decisions will have a seismic effect on the permanent landscape of collegiate athletics,” Phil DiStefano, chancellor of the University of Colorado Boulder, and Rick George, the school’s athletic director, said in a statement .

If the $2.8 billion settlement is approved by a judge, it would allow for a revenue-sharing plan through which Division I athletes can be paid directly by their schools for playing sports — a first in the nearly 120-year history of the N.C.A.A. Division 1 schools would be allowed to use about $20 million a year to pay their athletes as soon as the 2025 football season.

Mr. Jacquette thought of the word “trepidation” because of the impact that the settlement, shaped by the biggest and wealthiest universities with robust football programs, could have on coaches and athletes at smaller institutions and in low-profile sports.

And “confusion," because families of college athletes might soon be overwhelmed by all the possible ways for a student to get paid. In past years, the only form of compensation that students could get was athletic scholarships. But now, with the possibility of a revenue-sharing plan and pay arrangements involving students’ name, image and likeness , they have a lot more to consider when planning their collegiate sports careers.

“As this makes big news, people see this pot of gold at the end of the tunnel,” Mr. Jacquette said.

Many questioned what the financial burdens stemming from a revenue-sharing plan would look like.

Smaller conferences, such as the Big East — which includes Georgetown, Villanova and the University of Connecticut — have voiced “strong objections ” to the settlement, worried about shouldering an unfair burden of costs involved in revenue sharing. They said schools that have higher-profile sports teams and are part of bigger conferences, which often have TV contracts and much higher revenues, should be responsible for covering more of the costs.

Even coaches at powerful athletic programs, such as the University of Florida, which is part of the Southeastern Conference, had qualms. Tim Walton, the school’s softball coach, wondered in an interview with The Associated Press what this would mean for smaller sports programs on campus, and how the university would handle sharing revenues with athletes.

Another concern from critics of the settlement was whether female athletes would be compensated fairly. The settlement did not address how they would be paid compared to men, but Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination in educational settings.

“Oftentimes, we put all of our eggs in the revenue-generating sports, which is comprised of mostly male sports,” said Jasher Cox, athletic director of Allen University, a historically Black and Division II school in South Carolina.

But many still questioned how the settlement would pan out in practice. Terry Connor, the athletic director at Thomas More University in Kentucky, said in an interview that the reality of revenue sharing felt somewhat distant. Although his school is Division II and would not necessarily be part of a revenue-sharing plan, Mr. Connor said that this still affects college sports as a whole.

The settlement is only the latest in a series of big changes at the N.C.A.A. in recent years, Mr. Connor said, and “how we’ll have to adapt to that is going to be the big question.”

Mr. Jacquette cautioned that it was still “premature” to assess the full impact of the settlement, since the details had not been released. And Sam C. Ehrlich, a professor at Boise State University who has written extensively about college athletes, said that while the settlement was a milestone, it should not be seen as the be-all and end-all of college sports.

Pointing to the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in 2021 that the N.C.A.A. could not bar payments to college athletes, Mr. Ehrlich said the college sports landscape has been ever-changing. That decision paved the way for N.I.L. arrangements, or payments based on an athlete’s name, image and likeness. He also cited Johnson v. N.C.A.A. , a pending case over whether college athletes should be classified as employees, which could have profound labor and tax implications.

“This is a big moment, for sure, but it’s not like we have reached the finish line,” Mr. Ehrlich said. “I wouldn’t even necessarily go as far to say, ‘this is the climax here.’ This is still going to be ongoing for several years.”

Billy Witz contributed reporting.

David W. Chen reports on state legislatures, state level policymaking and the political forces behind them. More about David W. Chen

Jacey Fortin covers a wide range of subjects for the National desk of The Times, including extreme weather, court cases and state politics all across the country. More about Jacey Fortin

Anna Betts reports on national events, including politics, education, and natural or man-made disasters, among other things. More about Anna Betts

Inside the World of Sports

Dive deeper into the people, issues and trends shaping professional, collegiate and amateur athletics..

The N.C.A.A.’s New Era: If a judge approves, a $2.8 billion settlement  would let colleges and universities pay athletes directly for the first time. How would it work ?

Bringing Back Reebok: Shaquille O’Neal pushed to be in charge of the company’s return to the hypercompetitive world of basketball sneakers. The Hall of Famer understands the stakes .

The Capital of Women’s Soccer: The success of Barcelona Femení has made the Spanish city, and the broader region of Catalonia, a laboratory for finding out what happens when the women’s game has prominence similar to the men’s .

A Minnesota Rallying Cry:  Fans of the Minnesota Timberwolves have picked up on a phrase  uttered by the team’s star, Anthony Edwards, and are hardly put off by its mild vulgarity.

A Beloved Manager:  A coach’s soccer legacy is often reduced to titles and trophies. In Liverpool, Jürgen Klopp will endure in murals, music and shared memories .

• College Sports

How paying college athletes, cost of NCAA settlement could impact fans

The NCAA just completed a week of unprecedented change, with its century-old economic model obliterated by the settlement terms of an antitrust lawsuit.

But House v. NCAA wasn’t the only news story of the past five days.

Here’s a recap of developments that impact schools throughout the Pac-12 footprint and across the country …

1. House v. NCAA settlement

The skinny : The NCAA and the five power conferences on Thursday approved the settlement terms of a landmark multibillion dollar antitrust case that ends amateurism in college sports.

The impact : Arguably the most significant change in NCAA history, the House case will generate about $2.8 billion in backpay for former athletes and force schools to share as much as $20 million (approximately) in revenue annually with current and future athletes.

the latest from jon wilner

• NCAA settlement impact on WSU and OSU, Larry Scott’s loan and more | Mailbag
• Pac-12 tax filings reveal revenue jump in FY23, but also seeds of conference’s collapse
• Here are 10 key dates for fans of college sports for the next 12 months
• How new Pac-12 exec plans to turn Pac-12 Networks into profit source

Additionally, roster sizes will be expanded in certain sports, adding another $10 million in expenses for athletic departments that already struggle to balance their budgets.

The changes could be implemented by the fall of 2025.

Many unknowns remain, including the impact of the settlement on Title IX and the way schools will distribute the revenue across their sports. (Football and men’s basketball players are expected to receive the majority.)

What’s abundantly clear, however, is the additional burden placed on fans.

Why? Because the settlement hooks the revenue-sharing amount to media rights contracts. As the cash flowing from the TV networks to the conferences increases each year, the revenue cap expands. The more money the schools bring in, the more they have to share with athletes.

As a result, the price of everything from season tickets to parking spaces will increase as schools scramble to cover the total cost of the settlement, which is expected to start at $30 million but will eventually climb.

And because the settlement does not impact name, image and likeness (NIL), the booster-run collectives that dominate recruiting will continue to function — and seek cash from donors.

2. Pac-12 financial report

The skinny : The conference released its tax filings for the 2023 fiscal year on Thursday. As you might expect, the results were not good .

The impact : In contrast to its peer leagues, which distributed more to their campuses than they did in 2022, the Pac-12’s payouts actually dropped by 9.1% year-over-year: from $37 million to $33.6 million.

Meanwhile, The Big Ten paid an average of $60.5 million to its longstanding members last year, while the SEC spun off $51.3 million, the ACC paid $44.8 million and the Big 12 distributed $44.2 million, according to USA Today.

The decline in Pac-12 distributions was the result of Comcast withholding payments to the Pac-12 Networks in order to offset the amount it overpaid over the course of a decade.

In other words, the schools suffered because of terrible management at the conference level.

However, the former commissioners did quite well for themselves.

Larry Scott received $3 million in severance pay (over two years), and George Kliavkoff took home $4 million in salary, including a $500,000 bonus paid during the calendar year (2022) in which USC and UCLA fled to the Big Ten.

All in all, Scott and Kliavkoff received about $57 million in combined salary over the course of their tenures while steering the conference to extinction.

3. TNT joins the CFP

The skinny : ESPN announced Wednesday that it has sublicensed a handful of College Football Playoff games to TNT, beginning with the upcoming season.

The impact : The five-year deal does not alter the structure of the expanded playoff, which will feature 12 teams in the 2024-25 seasons and possibly more starting in 2026, when a new format could be implemented.

Most Read Sports Stories

• Bill Walton, Hall of Fame player who became a star broadcaster, dies of cancer at 71 VIEW
• Kraken will name Dan Bylsma as next coach, source says
• RIP, Bill Walton: The Pac-12’s greatest supporter passes away
• Mariners make early runs stand up, open homestand with tight win over rival Astros VIEW
• Mariners call up Ryan Bliss for MLB debut; Jorge Polanco placed on IL | Notebook

However, the partnership brings a second media partner into the sport’s premier event and raises the prospect of a studio show comparable to “Inside the NBA,” with Charles Barkley waxing poetic on fourth-down decisions and targeting penalties.

TNT will broadcast two opening-round games next season (Dec. 20-21) and eventually show quarterfinal matchups as well.

4. Fox swallows Fridays

The skinny : It was easy to miss given all the developments, but Fox unveiled a stellar lineup of Friday matchups for the upcoming season.

The impact : The strategic shift is suboptimal for fans planning to attend the games in person given the travel and logistical hurdles. Anyone planning to catch the action at home might welcome the move to weekly Friday broadcasts.

As expected, the West Coast teams entering the Big Ten are featured prominently: Washington, Oregon and UCLA will play two conference games on Fridays (one home, one on the road), while USC will play one.

The road challenge is particularly steep for the Pacific Northwest schools. The Huskies head all the way to Rutgers six days after their Big Ten opener, at home against Northwestern, while the Ducks visit Purdue after their home game against Ohio State.

Fox’s tactics are clear: Fill a void in the college football viewing calendar and create synergy between the Friday night game and its marquee matchup scheduled for 12 p.m. Eastern on Saturday.

5. PE enters the fray

The skinny : Two private investment firms, RedBird Capital Partners and Weatherford Capital, announced Wednesday the creation of Collegiate Athletics Solutions (CAS), a platform designed to provide cash to financially strapped athletic departments.

The impact : The frontman for the operation is former Florida State quarterback Drew Weatherford, who reportedly has pitched dozens of schools on the benefits of using private capital.

Weatherford told Yahoo that his venture is not seeking ownership in athletic departments but, rather, offering an infusion of cash — a loan, essentially. In return, CAS would receive a percentage of any revenue growth.

The Hotline hasn’t confirmed any conversations between CAS and Pac-12 athletic departments, but Colorado and Arizona certainly seem like potential candidates given their heavy reliance on university support. (Arizona president Robert Robbins has acknowledged interest in the option.)

That said, numerous college sports officials are wary of private capital entering the industry.

The opinions expressed in reader comments are those of the author only and do not reflect the opinions of The Seattle Times.

We use COOKIES to make your user experience better.

By staying on our website, you fully accept it. Learn more » It's OK

Introduction

Over the past few decades, college athletic has become more popular among Americans. This helps National Collegiate Athletic Association NCAA to earn millions of dollars r annually and now there is a debate whether the college athletic should get compensations beyond their scholarships. The National Labor Relations board of Chicago defines an employee as a person who has signed a contract to perform agreed service for another; employer is in control and gets payment in return (Hardin, James and Timothy 46). According to these standards the players may be considered employees based on their time and effort. However, college sports are not all about money. The opportunity to play a game that a person likes should not be equated to a job.

According to NCCA approximately 2% of high school sportsmen are given a chance to compete for college athlete. It is a privilege for anyone to get this opportunity, let alone the scholarship. This is one of the highest levels any athlete would dream to compete in, therefore, it should not be taken for granted. Collegiate athletic are driven by passion for an individual to become successful in both sport and life. The athletic scholarship is worth between 20.000 and 50,000 dollars per year (NCAA 67). Moreover, this does not include their medical and travel allowances, professional coach and also the chance to audition for professional jobs. All their expenses are fully paid by the universities where these athletes were chosen.

First Order Discount 15% OFF

College athletics especially division 1 provide a huge source of revenue to universities and college. It is earned through sales of tickets, television contracts and other merchandise related to sport. A recent study conducted in the University of Texas showed that athletic program earned revenue of approximately 120,000,000 dollars. Yet the players are not compensated. NCAA declares that a person is not eligible for sport if one have ever received payment or promised it (58). Athletes work very hard to bring revenue to the university yet they are not rewarded monetary value.

There are reasons the game student participate in colleges and universities referred to as college sports rather than professional sports. This is because the players are college students. People go to universities to improve their skills and learn how to perform their jobs better. In college student plays in in order to be pros and not to receive paycheck. Moreover, universities pay enough money to build training facilities, coaches, scholarships and directors to enhance their chance for win. If college paid the athletes there would be no more opportunity to cater for these expenses. The college helps the players to be a part of team by giving them scholarships and thus making school affordable. In addition, paying the college athlete would in turn ruin the role of the university the main purpose of which is to educate. The knowledge and skills they get in the university is not equitable to the money they would get if they were to get paid. There are many people who have suggested several reasons why the college athlete should be allowed to get compensation, but those arguments are not adequate because the main objective of a university is to educate rather than provide sports entertainments. Despite the hindrances in the system, pay to the student athlete contradicts to the primary function of education institution.

Education and scholarships

The collegiate-level athletes get higher education in colleges and universities that most of their high schoolmate would not afford. In addition, they will graduate with a degree. In other words, these players are already paid through the scholarship which is awarded according to a player’s talent determined by the training coach (“Athletic Scholarships” 23). In addition to the university degree, the student learns values that will help them in real life situation and work once they leave college.

Before they start demanding to be paid, let’s take into account the benefits they already have. The athletic scholarships are enough to cover all the expenses a student will require for a period of four years including tuition, books, medical care and meals. Most universities charges between 30,000 and 50,000 per year. In other words, each student is reimbursed the amount of money an average American would make annually.

An additionally college degree allows a student to earn more money that one would make with an ordinary high school diploma whether the student get a professional job or not. A graduate student makes an approximate additional 1 million more in their lifetime. Moreover, the students get the privilege to travel around the world.

Money allocation

Most people believe that colleges and universities make off money with the help of athletics. A sport analysis conducted indicated that only 23 out 238 departments in public schools had generated enough money to pay for their expenses. The revenue obtained from athletics however does not outweigh the cost of running the athletics programs despite the sports being used as an attraction to a university. The revenue obtained is used to pay salaries to the staff. The cost of tuition of each student is less than the salary of an athletic trainer which is 44,720 dollars according to the bureau labour statistics. These are the staffs that make the athlete to become professional and most schools can not even afford to pay the staffs, let alone the student athlete.

Make the Payment

Download Your Paper

Place an Order

Communicate with the Writer

Contractual Agreement

During university admission the student signs the scholarships contractual agreement. While studying at the university, the student not only gets an opportunity to play the preferred sports at a better level but also earn a university degree. Therefore, money compensation is not part of the agreement and should not be debatable matter during their tenure in the university.

Before signing these contracts, the students are aware that they will not receive extra compensation from the organization. The signing of contracts declares they are now playing for their university rather than individual. Also they represent the organizations that sponsor those universities including Nike, Adidas and Under Amour. These companies sponsor the universities as well as the athlete students. A recent study showed that the athlete student spend about seven hours weekly outside for practices.

In other words, the universities would be forced to eliminate some sports in order to pay some athletic teams. Generally, not all the universities have the capability to pay the athletes and this would result in fact that some sport has to get cut in order to get the amount required for compensation. All athlete dedicate their time to sports, therefore, it would be unfair if some its kinds were cut. If several teams were eliminated some student would have no sports and all their effort will be totally wasted.

Living the Dream

College athlete should realize that it is a privilege to get certain opportunity that most of their age mate aspire to have. They should give the game their all because that is what they love. The game is not a duty or an hourly job, but if they are paid this is what it would mean. The dedication and the passion of the game would be lost. Therefore, the question should never be about how much money the game is worth.

The favourite sport is about fulfilling their dreams. The players should be proud and passionate about how winning a game will bring gratification (Schneider and Robert 25). They should do it for the completion and the glory it brings. It is about the sacrifices an individual makes for his or her teammates he/she have trained with and for the name of the school.

It is a chance to play a game a person is passionate about for another four year. Also it is a privilege rather than a job. The college athletes are not professional ones who are paid salaries and allowances for the sport careers. This is because in college a person has access to education through participation in sport where they earn the scholarship to pay tuition and other expenses.

College athletes are not professional

A student athlete focuses on education and sport unlike professionals who focussed on sports alone. This makes the student athlete to be more passionate about sport because they are playing for the school rather than the money. If the athlete were to get compensation the innocence would be taken away. The funds that are used for academics would also reduce if they were to get paid. Also being an athletic student one is already isolated from university; therefore, compensation would increase this gap. At the end, the athletic departments would become more of a business rather than focus on helping the athlete to attain education. According to Bleacher report scholarship are met to facilitate education for student who cannot afford to attend universities. Neither were they to attract top athletes to school who had no intention to get education. When the students are allowed to be compensated, that is what a scholarship would become.

Nowadays, full scholarships are awarded to the most talented athletes rather than the needy student who cannot afford college education; universities appeals through athletic programs making it harder to attain a scholarship ("Federal student aid" par 6). If the athletes were to get paid, university popularity would be measured on the amount of compensation instead of the quality education offered. In other words paying the student will be harmful to both universities and students.

Disadvantage to small universities

Additionally, if all universities started paying athletes, this would make a difference between bigger and smaller university athletic teams. A bigger university has more revenue; therefore, it can be able to obtain the best player. On the other hand, smaller universities would not be able to afford them thus will be disadvantaged. The college sports should not be centred on the money alone. The athlete should focus more on the sport they play because not every one is lucky enough to receive the aid they do.

NCAA ensures the student’s well-being and the institution has a responsibility to maintain a good environment where the activities are conducted in a way that encourages academic success and personal development. The program of collegiate athlete is also maintained an essential component of educational program in such a way that the student athletes become a part of the student’s community. In every university or college the academic standards are designed to promote education and are consistent with the student’s society.

College sports are more of students' vehicle in attaining a graduate degree rather than a career. The access to education is dependant upon continuous participation in sports for which they receives the scholarship. Most students’ athlete graduate university without students loans which most other students have. Participating in the intercollegiate athletics is student athlete’s choice as a part of educational experience; therefore, there is a distinction between the collegiate level athlete and professional one.

Though many are in favour of salaries, the universities spend a lot of money for the players benefit and also for the sport to which they participate in. This might cause a lot of problem relating passion to salaries. The scholarships they get should be seen a privilege because many of their high school student cannot afford it. Therefore, student athlete should not be paid.

Want some help with your writing assignment?

Authorization

Free essays categories

• Analysis Essay (23)
• Persuasive Essay (6)
• Process Analysis Essay (7)
• Compare and Contrast Essay (13)
• Argumentative Essay (18)

Related essays

• Why Marijuanas Should Be Legal
• Should Embryonic Stem Cell Research Be Permitted
• The Abu Dhabi Airport Can Encounter Sandstorms
• Six Thinking Hats
• Save the Apes

Our Advantages

• Custom Writing on Any Subject
• English-speaking Writers
• Only Original Papers
• Affordable Prices
• Complete Confidentiality
• BA, MA and PhD Writers
• Up-to-date Sources Only
• Any Citation Style

Paper Features

• You choose font face
• 12 point font size
• Double-spaced pages
• Over 300 words/page
• Text aligned left
• One-inch margins

NCAA signs off on deal that would change landscape of college sports — paying student-athletes

A major change could be coming for college athletes — they may soon start getting paid.

A tentative agreement announced Thursday by the NCAA and the country’s five biggest conferences to a series of antitrust lawsuits could direct millions of dollars directly to athletes as soon as fall 2025.

The nearly $2.8 billion settlement, which would be paid out over the next decade to 14,000 former and current student-athletes, “is an important step in the continuing reform of college sports that will provide benefits to student-athletes and provide clarity in college athletics across all divisions for years to come,” NCAA President Charlie Baker said in a joint statement Thursday night with the commissioners of the ACC, the Big 10, the Big 12, the Pac-12 and the SEC.

The federal judge overseeing the case must still sign off on the agreement, but if it is approved, it would signal a major shift in college sports in which students would play for compensation, not just scholarships, exposure and opportunities.

“This landmark settlement will bring college sports into the 21st century, with college athletes finally able to receive a fair share of the billions of dollars of revenue that they generate for their schools,” said Steve Berman, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs. “Our clients are the bedrock of the NCAA’s multibillion-dollar business and finally can be compensated in an equitable and just manner for their extraordinary athletic talents.”

The NCAA and power conferences called the settlement a “road map” that would allow the uniquely American institution to provide unmatched opportunity for millions of students and write the “next chapter of college sports.”

The case, which was set to go to trial early next year, was brought by a former and a current college athlete who said the NCAA and the five wealthiest conferences improperly barred athletes from earning endorsement money. Former Arizona State swimmer Grant House and Sedona Prince, a former Oregon and current TCU basketball player, also contended in their suit that athletes were entitled to a piece of the billions of dollars the NCAA and those conferences earn from media rights agreements with television networks.

Michael McCann, a legal analyst and sports reporter at Sportico , told NBC News in an interview on Top Story with Tom Llamas the case has two components that “move away from amateurism” — one that deals with how players are paid for the past loss of earnings, including money they could have made for name, image and likeness.

“The going forward part is that colleges can opt in, conferences can opt in, as well, to pay players, to share revenue with them, to have direct pay, and that would be of course a radical from the traditions of college sports,” McCann said, adding many would say that change is warranted. “Now the athletes, at least at some schools, will get a direct stake.”

Terms of the deal were not disclosed, though some details have emerged in the past few weeks. They signal the end of the NCAA’s bedrock amateurism model that dates to its founding in 1906. Indeed, the days of NCAA punishment for athletes driving booster-provided cars started vanishing three years ago when the organization  lifted restrictions on endorsement deals  backed by so-called name, image and likeness, or NIL, money.

Now it is not far-fetched to look ahead to seasons when a star quarterback or a top prospect on a college basketball team not only is cashing in big-money NIL deals but also has a $100,000 school payment in the bank to play.

A host of  details are still to be determined . The agreement calls for the NCAA and the conferences to pay $2.77 billion over 10 years to more than 14,000 former and current college athletes who say now-defunct rules prevented them from earning money from endorsement and sponsorship deals dating to 2016.

Some of the money would come from NCAA reserve funds and insurance, but even though the lawsuit specifically targeted five conferences that comprise 69 schools (including Notre Dame),  dozens of other NCAA member schools  would get smaller distributions from the NCAA to cover the mammoth payout.

Schools in the Big Ten, the Big 12 and the Atlantic Coast and Southeastern conferences would end up bearing the brunt of the settlement at a cost of about $300 million apiece over 10 years, the majority of which would be paid to athletes going forward.

The Pac-12 is also part of the settlement, with all 12 current schools sharing responsibility even though Washington State and Oregon State will be the only league members left by this fall after the 10 other schools leave.

Paying athletes

In the new compensation model, each school would be permitted but not required to set aside up to $21 million in revenue to share with athletes per year, though as revenues rose, so could the cap.

Athletes in all sports would be eligible for payments, and schools would be given the freedom to decide how the money is divvied up among sports programs. Roster restrictions would replace scholarship limits by sport.

McCann said the back pay would disproportionately go to some sports — such as football and basketball.

“The schools that I think that are certainly big football schools will probably opt in because they’re going to want to compete, they’re going to want to get the best players, because college football generates a lot of revenue,” he said. 

Whether the new compensation model is subject to the Title IX gender equity law is unknown, along with whether schools would be able to bring NIL activities in-house as they hope and squeeze out the booster-run collectives that have sprouted up in the last few years to pay athletes. Both topics could lead to more lawsuits.

“There are all sorts of areas of turbulence that could present themselves,” McCann said of roadblocks that could arise.

More sports coverage

• Four decades after Michael Jordan, Caitlin Clark is getting her own line of Wilson basketballs
• Mario Andretti: Formula 1 owner personally threatened to shut out team Andretti
• Student-athletes are inking lucrative endorsement deals, but a patchwork of laws has created chaos in college sports

Other cases

The settlement is expected to cover two  other antitrust cases  facing the NCAA and major conferences that challenge athlete compensation rules. Hubbard v. the NCAA and Carter v. the NCAA are also in front of judges in the Northern District of California.

A fourth case, Fontenot v. NCAA, creates a potential complication, as it remains in a Colorado court after a judge  denied a request  to combine it with Carter. Whether Fontenot becomes part of the settlement is unknown, and it matters because the NCAA and its conferences don’t want to be on the hook for more damages should they lose in court.

“We’re going to continue to litigate our case in Colorado and look forward to hearing about the terms of a settlement proposal once they’re actually released and put in front of a court,” said George Zelcs, a plaintiffs’ attorney in Fontenot.

Headed in that direction

The solution agreed to in the settlement is a landmark but not surprising. College sports have been trending in this direction for years, with athletes receiving more and more monetary benefits and rights they say were long overdue.

In December, Baker, the former governor of Massachusetts who has been on the job for 14 months,  proposed creating a new tier of Division I athletics  in which the schools with the most resources would be required to pay at least half their athletes $30,000 per year. That suggestion, along with many other possibilities, remains under discussion.

The settlement would not make every issue facing college sports go away. There is still a question of whether athletes should be  deemed employees  of their schools, which Baker and other college sports leaders  are fighting.

Some type of federal legislation or antitrust exemption would most likely still be needed to codify the terms of the settlement, protect the NCAA from future litigation and pre-empt state laws that attempt to neuter the organization’s authority. As it is,  the NCAA still faces lawsuits  that challenge its ability to govern itself, including setting rules limiting multiple-time transfers.

“This settlement is also a road map for college sports leaders and Congress to ensure this uniquely American institution can continue to provide unmatched opportunity for millions of students,” the joint statement said. “All of Division I made today’s progress possible, and we all have work to do to implement the terms of the agreement as the legal process continues. We look forward to working with our various student-athlete leadership groups to write the next chapter of college sports.”

Federal lawmakers have indicated they would like to get something done, but while  several bills have been introduced , none have gone anywhere.

Despite the unanswered questions, one thing is clear: Major college athletics is about to become more like professional sports than ever before.

Why College Athletes should not be Paid?

This essay will present arguments against paying college athletes, discussing the potential impacts on college sports, the essence of amateurism, and the financial implications for universities and athletes. At PapersOwl, you’ll also come across free essay samples that pertain to College.

How it works

The average FBS scholarship is worth $36,070, and that’s just the cost of tuition and boarding. College Football players that are on scholarship are receiving a free education, along with free meals and boarding. Jeffrey Dorman, a economics professor at the University of Georgia, wrote in Forbes magazine that a college football scholarship is worth up to $125,000 if you include tuition, boarding, nutrition, and the coaching the players receive. Even with free tuition, people still argue that the players deserve to be paid.

College Athletes should not be paid because their already getting paid with a free education, rooming, and free meals.

First of all, college athletes have several expenses paid for outside of school, like food, training, and facilities. All of these expenses would have to be paid by the players if they weren’t on scholarship. Jeffrey Dorman said that a college athletic scholarship is worth from $50,000-$125,000. Dorman served on the athletic board at the University of Georgia and he said, “Some people are aware enough to realize that student athletes on athletic scholarship are essentially paid already because they receive free tuition, room, meal plans, and some money for books and miscellaneous expenses. At the bigger, more successful universities, athletes also receive academic counseling, tutoring, life skill training, and even nutritional advice.” Even though the athletes don’t receive $50,000-$125,000 in cash, they are getting paid at least that amount in other ways.

Unlike what most people think, the majority of college athletic departments either break even or lose money every year. Forbes Magazine reported in 2012 that only 23 out of 228 division one athletic programs ran a surplus. If only 23 teams had a surplus of money it impossible for every school to be able to pay their players. To make up for the lack of money, student’s tuitions would be raised, ticket and merchandise prices would rise, and faculty and staff of the university would receive a pay cut. All of these actions that are meant to free up more money for the athletes would cause an uproar among students and fans. Therefore, if the money isn’t available to pay the athletes there would be no perfect way to come up with more money.

Even if the money was there, their would be equity issues that are inevitable. Schools would run into serious issues. Do all players get paid the same? The players would argue that it’s not fair for the starters and bench players to get paid the same. Do only the revenue making sports get paid? In most schools, only football and men’s basketball makes money because of this the extra revenue that they make goes to other teams, but if the extra revenue is going to paying players the other sports that will plummet. Do all school have to pay players the same amount? Georgia Southern won’t be able to pay the same amount that Alabama can. This causes for a bidding war between college athletics trying to sign the best players. Rush Propst, head football coach at Colquitt County, said that college teams are trying to recruit kids by telling them their stipend check each month is higher than another team’s. All of these could cause for lawsuits and bad publicity for the University. More issues would be created rather than solved by paying players.

On the other hand. Some people would argue that college athletes deserve a piece of the lucrative tv deals worth billions of dollars. Most of the money goes to NCAA and the conferences the teams play for. After that money reaches the universities it is needed for facilities upkeep, staff salaries, and it is used for expenses like uniforms for the players. People also say that it’ll reduce corruption in sports, but it is impossible to keep a coach or booster to pay a player extra under the table. I know that some players can’t afford costs of clothes and other expenses because they don’t have time for a job. That’s why there are grants set up for college athletes that give players cash for expenses. Players also receive stipend checks each month for miscellaneous expenses. All of the reasons for paying college athletes is pushing the players away from representing their school. This takes the joy out of watching amatuer sports.

For these reasons previously listed, it is clearly evident that there’s no possible way for college athletes to get paid and make everyone happy. Athletes already receive a “package” worth tens of thousands of dollars. There is not enough money to go around and even if there was there would be several equity issues. College athletes are being pushed away from being amateurs and being forced to become professional athletes, while in school. Former North Carolina basketball player Marvin Williams said, “I’m fearful that the courts, our autonomy and our own governance structure is moving us away from what we have called the collegiate model for the last 50 years and more toward a professional model or more toward the Olympic model. And what that will do, in my opinion, is channel more resources to fewer people.”

Cite this page

Why College Athletes Should Not Be Paid?. (2019, May 31). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/why-college-athletes-should-not-be-paid/

"Why College Athletes Should Not Be Paid?." PapersOwl.com , 31 May 2019, https://papersowl.com/examples/why-college-athletes-should-not-be-paid/

PapersOwl.com. (2019). Why College Athletes Should Not Be Paid? . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/why-college-athletes-should-not-be-paid/ [Accessed: 29 May. 2024]

"Why College Athletes Should Not Be Paid?." PapersOwl.com, May 31, 2019. Accessed May 29, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/why-college-athletes-should-not-be-paid/

"Why College Athletes Should Not Be Paid?," PapersOwl.com , 31-May-2019. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/why-college-athletes-should-not-be-paid/. [Accessed: 29-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2019). Why College Athletes Should Not Be Paid? . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/why-college-athletes-should-not-be-paid/ [Accessed: 29-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

NCAA Allows College Athletes To Be Paid By Schools: Why You Should Care, What It All Means

Ncaa, power five conferences can pay athletes now.

T he college athletic model just got the Oppenheimer treatment as the NCAA, along with the ACC - including Notre Dame - Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, and (sky point) Pac-12 agreed that the college athletes can be paid by the schools themselves.

The pay doesn’t have to come from some strange booster collective, and trying to get weird with terms like NIL don’t have to matter as much, and …

I know, I know. Anecdotally, trying to get anyone interested in the nuts and bolts of the business of college athletics has been an uphill climb - everyone wants to talk about EA Sports College Football 25.

But you clicked on the link to see what this all about which means 1) you’re REALLY bored, or 2) you’re REALLY mad that this is how college sports are going, or 3) you REALLY want to try to figure out how this impacts your life as a fan of college athletics, and I’ll stop being so snarky now.

There are several good breakdowns out there if you’re looking to dive deep into the details - here are two strong ones from Tom Dierberger at SI.com and Dan Murray and Pete Thamel at ESPN.com .

If you’re looking for the most basic version of this, here's what you should know.

Why is the NCAA finally letting schools pay players?

They’re all trying to get out of this without getting sued into oblivion.

As is there are a slew of other lawsuits out there from former athletes looking to get their cuts of various aspects of the revenue model from the past. For the most part, though, this move will chill things out just enough to keep the NCAA and all the member schools from having to hold bake sales.

To be more accurate, they’re paying a pittance now to lessen the chance of getting steamrolled later.

How will this work?

To be VERY simplistic here, each school will get around $20 million to figure out how to split with the athletes who competed over the last ten years.

It’ll get tricky because some will get more than others - the Johnny Five-Star who rocked will get more than the non-revenue sport bench type - but 1) players don’t have to take this. They can opt out of the payment and shoot their shot in some sort of future lawsuit, 2) this is NOT going to be easy because no one has this figured out yet, and, most importantly, 3) …

Why should you care?

Unless you have some antiquated notion of college athletic purity that never actually existed, this doesn’t affect you at all.

College athletes have been receiving things for years. Scholarships, stipends, swag bags at bowl games - college sports has done everything possible to go as long as they have without having to cut the players in on the fun. Now the athletes will start to get a part of all those billions the schools are raking in, and the average fan will never notice.

With that said …

The NCAA is better at this than you think

There will be a backlash.

Saying this as a players' rights believer, the athletes are still relatively powerless.

They aren’t a unionized group, they can’t/won’t collectively bargain, and in the grand scheme of things, the $2.7 billion being thrown around here is couch cushion money compared to what it could be if there was a way to herd all the cats.

Yes, going forward the overall model really will change, but that’s mostly to make it more uniform in a world of booster clubs and collectives - the athletes will start to get a real, meaningful cut. But make no mistake about it; the power still lies with the professional business types at the NCAA and top universities.

There’s a solid chance Congress does something - (cough) lobbying (wheeeeeeeze) - to limit how this works depending on how much the major public institutions are able to get to the right people, but there’s one key aspect here that has to be remembered at every turn …

For the most part, fans don’t really care.

The backlash will come from the powers-that-have-been who don’t want to lose that edge. Fans might complain during polite small talk at parties, but once the ball is kicked off no one will raise much of a stink.

Outside of the occasional grump on social media, fans won’t stop watching, people won’t boycott the games, and if anything, the players getting money will raise the overall level of play that much more to make the games even more interesting.

Everything will be okay.