Why paying college athletes is a good idea

None of these players on their own are costing the NCAA revenue with their decisions to abstain. While not all student-athletes are on scholarship, many are.

This is especially true for those who are playing for athletic programs that are competing for national championships. In addition to free tuition and room and board, these college athletes also often receive stipends to help towards books and other basic needs. This money does not have to be paid back. Most other students are not receiving these benefits. Thus, in comparison, student-athletes already have it easier, financially, than most of the students at their school.

The logistics governing any sort of pay structure for college athletes is unavoidably complicated. Questions about the details are plentiful, and answers are scarce. Should only college athletes in the most popular and profitable sports football and basketball be paid?

If not, what money should be used to pay the baseball players, soccer players and fencers? Is it the responsibility of the school or the NCAA? How much should students-athletes earn? It would not be outside the realm of possibility that a school might decide to only pay athletes if they belong to programs that make money. If redistribution does happen, then it might be tempting to pay the basketball and football players more for everyone else.

It could create a bidding war for the best athletes each year. If payment were allowable in the future without a cap, then there would be a bidding war among the top institutions for the best players coming out of high school each year. This process would be challenging to control because the biggest universities could always outbid the smaller colleges that play in the same division. Imagine a Big Ten football conference where Michigan, Michigan State, and Ohio State get the first run of players, and then schools like Nebraska, Iowa, and Rutgers try to compete with second-tier talent.

It would create divisional dynasties where only the players at the best schools would have the chance to play for championships each year. There could be Title IX implications with this effort. Another problem that proponents of paying student-athletes would need to address in the United States is the equality requirements of Title IX.

That means paying one athlete would likely mean paying everyone. That outcome will either increase the total expenses of the program, add more fees to it, or lower the amount of pay that each athlete could earn while attending the institution. You would have issues with grade-related performance.

If you work a job anywhere, there are certain rules that you must follow so that you can earn a paycheck. That would hold true for student-athletes since they would need to show up for practices and games to earn their salary. What would happen if the NCAA or the school issued an academic suspension to an athlete? By initiating a plan that would offer student-athletes access to a regular paycheck, the institution would de-emphasize the importance of an education as they do under the current scholarship structure.

The advantages and disadvantages of paying college athletes a salary presents several variables that could be problematic. Instead of looking at a system where students receive a stipend from their institution in addition to their scholarship, it may be worthwhile to look at letting the NCAA and similar associations to let athletes receive profits from the use of their likeness, autograph sessions, and the sale of game-related items which they own.

Taking this route would place the responsibility for earning outside of the scope of the college or university. It would let the student take advantage of their notoriety while avoiding many of the potential problems that would arise when paying everyone. List of the Advantages of Paying College Athletes 1. List of the Disadvantages of Paying College Athletes 1. Conclusion The advantages and disadvantages of paying college athletes a salary presents several variables that could be problematic.

Share Tweet Pin. Students from these institutions are given full sponsorship from enormous brands. Mandatory pay would either reduce the budget for other departments of the university or reduce the number of student-athletes. NCAA is a non-profit organization. That means all of its income should be spent on collegiate sports organizations. Some argue that if bidding becomes a possibility, then the stronger teams will become even stronger. Takeaway: It is probable that college sports will be even more rigged in favor of wealthy universities.

On one side of the argument, many think that it is appropriate to pay college athletes. People see fit that students get paid for their performance as they are the fundamental piece that drives external revenue to universities. Without them, sponsors would be scarce, and funding for facilities that would benefit the entire student body would be subpar or non-existent. They insist that college athletes deserve their pay as they are more than just amateur athletes.

On the opposing side, many argue that there are major differences between intercollegiate athletics professional sports First of all, they should not get paid as very few college players are taking the spotlight. College football players should not be treated as a professional football team. Paying college athletes would go against sportsmanship as richer colleges could attract other college students with their bigger budgets.

Graduate scholarships would there not be the only remuneration that student-athletes receive. Currently, the government is working with lawyers, psychologists, philosophers, economists, and many geniuses to one day improve — if not finally decide — which is the right choice: to pay student-athletes or not.

Skip to content Salarship. Find Student Jobs Job Ideas. Have you heard of the salary controversy regarding college athletes?

I have gathered the weightiest arguments and an in-depth analysis of their validity. Pro 1: Large Revenue Generated by College Athletes The main argument in favor of paying college athletes is that they bring in a large net amount of revenue to their schools. This money is spread through administrators, athletic directors, coaches, and media outlets. However, college athletes are not compensated for their contributions. They also pay coaches a different sum to encourage students to wear them in unison.

However, they also give student-athletes a nearly unlimited supply of shoes and sportswear. Exactly who gets paid and how much? The economics of a paid-athlete system is messy at best. At worst, it's chaotic and threatens team morale.

Should all athletes be paid? That's not likely. How about only football and basketball players? What determines how much each player should earn? Is the third-string left guard worth as much as the starting quarterback? Will the coach make these determinations? What if the coach's son plays on the team? Assuming a free-market system, the chasm between the haves and have-nots would widen even further.

Universities best positioned to pay athletes top dollar would win bidding wars and recruiting battles against institutions with limited budgets. Athletic competition nationwide would suffer as a result. Might this exacerbate booster interference and create a black market for top talent funded surreptitiously?

Paying student-athletes turns them into professionals and sullies the purity of amateur athletic competition. Student-athletes are students first and foremost, attending college primarily to receive an education and secondarily to compete in their sport. College students should participate in sports for the love of the game, not for financial gain, following the long-forgotten credo held dear by Olympic athletes.

Title IX stipulates that colleges must provide equal opportunities for male and female athletes. Does this rule apply to payment structures, too, though? Would a university have to pay female athletes in aggregate the same amount as their male counterparts? Not necessarily — but a school would be required to ensure that female athletes receive proportionate opportunities for scholarships.

This quandary offers no easy solution. The most likely and reasonable scenario entails allowing college athletes to benefit financially from endorsement deals, as California has proposed.

But to be fair and equitable, that law and any other would have to pertain nationally and be sanctioned by the NCAA, which is currently reconsidering its bylaws regarding the issue. Even the U. Senate has jumped into the fray, establishing a subcommittee on "Protecting the Integrity of College Athletics.