This idea, although reasonable at first glance, is completely wrong. If colleges were required to pay athletes` salaries, the entire fabric of amateur college sport could disintegrate, harming the interests of fans, colleges and, most importantly, the players themselves. Let`s see why. “In order to maintain the character and quality of the `product` (NCAA), athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend classes, etc. Therefore, the NCAA plays a critical role in ensuring that college football can retain its character and thereby market a product that might otherwise not be available. The argument for paying college athletes tends to collapse when scholarships are mentioned. Anyway, isn`t a scholarship essentially a paycheck to go to university? A little extra money isn`t really necessary if you`ve already paid for some of your expensive education, not to mention those with full driving scholarships. Take, for example, recent stories of players like Reggie Bush, Cam Newton or Ohio State players who received money and/or other benefits while playing football. Although student-athletes know that they are not directly paid to play, many want and even expect some form of compensation. Slack, 25, surveyed 3,500 current and retired football players in 1989, finding that 31 percent had received moonlighting money during their college careers and 48 percent knew others who had received payments. This seems to imply that even though many recruits are actually aware of the “deal,” they are showing their displeasure by accepting payments or other benefits that are not currently authorized by the NCAA. Tim Tebow told The Daily Show (26) that before a national championship game, he joked with his college coach about getting some of his bonus money to get a win.
This brings to the surface another way of sharing revenue: coaches share bonuses and other performance incentives with players. Most coaches in the big programs receive huge bonuses based on team record and ranking, all of which are due to player performance. For example, according to the 2009 IRS income tax returns, Mike Krzyewski received $2,222,543 in bonuses and incentives (4). According to this proposal, coaches would have to share 25 to 50% of their bonuses with players. Isn`t it reasonable to expect athletes to receive some of the bonus money? After all, they (i.e. the players) are the ones who allow coaches to earn these bonuses. A great example of this is Deshaun Watson, a quarterback who led the Clemson University football team to a Division I national championship this year. He has not received any additional payments for his performances, but will instead be rewarded in this year`s NFL Draft, where he is expected to be among the top 10 picks.
Watson will likely sign a multi-million dollar contract with his respective team to kick-start his career, and could see the opportunity to make even more money if he becomes a star. In addition, Watson cemented a legacy for himself at Clemson that would never have been possible without his participation in college sports. Parent (23) notes the hypocrisy of the dilettantist construction when he considers these capitalist questions. He notes that former University of Washington President William Gerberding said, “When you think about the obvious fact that so many of the most gifted athletes are economically and educationally disadvantaged blacks, it becomes less and less defensible. I feel increasingly uncomfortable having a largely white establishment that maintains an elaborate system of rules that denies adequate financial support to student-athletes, many of whom are not white, in the name of the ideals of amateurism” (p.236). In the early and mid-1900s, athletes were regularly recruited and paid to play; And there have been several cases where people representing schools were not registered as students. For example, there is a report on a Midwestern university that employs seven members of its team, including the city`s blacksmith, a lawyer, a varnisher, and four railroad employees (5). Other college athletes got high-paying jobs for which they worked little or nothing. In 1948, the NCAA adopted a “code of common sense” that limited financial support to athletes to teaching and fees, requiring that assistance be otherwise provided on an as-needed basis (5). In the early 1950s, with the threat that several Southern schools would drop out of the NCAA, the code was revised to allow athletic scholarships to cover tuition, fees, and living expenses.
Finally, it is not clear that university athletes who are paid through scholarships and living expenses are materially “underpaid” and “exploited.” For example, a major economic study by economists Richard McKenzie and Dwight Lee on NCAA rules rejected this idea. In addition, the current regulatory climate already allows many student-athletes to receive affirmations, and even those who do not can develop personal connections that serve them well in their professional and personal lives, including connections stemming from the popularity of the university. (Think of the wealthy, well-connected alumni who are big fans of their colleges` athletic programs.) A sports journalist suggested in a recent national radio interview that any argument against paying college athletes based solely on education being the prize is “outdated.” But what seems outdated and even short-sighted is the belief that paying a college athlete a little (or even a lot) of money will solve all or even some of the student`s long-term problems. The NCAA`s fear, as it should be, is that the mere notion of paying college athletes undermines the university`s primary purpose — education, something far more valuable than a modest annual scholarship offered by many. If it currently seems that universities don`t really care about the athlete, paying him would reinforce that belief, not dispel it. By paying student-athletes, other programs at the school that don`t make a lot of money are being cut. Even the largest schools in the NCAA won`t be able to pay every player and financially track other athletic programs, resulting in them being cut. According to www.baylorlariat.com, “If a university starts paying student-athletes, it could have a negative impact on other athletic programs. There would not be enough money to pay all student-athletes the same way and to keep all sports. Small sports that do not generate enough revenue to support the program would certainly be cut.
“There wouldn`t be as many opportunities for everyone if we paid our student-athletes. Now consider college athletes who don`t attract national attention. Most of these people play without a scholarship and have to pay the full cost to their respective schools. I`m sure they would push for the idea of providing college athletes with some profit, but that`s clearly not possible. But if they don`t get money from college sports or at the professional level, why would they choose to spend so much time on it? The idea of paying varsity athletes for competition dates back to the first intercollegiate competition. During a regatta between Harvard and Yale universities, Harvard used a helmsman who was not even a student enrolled in the Ivy League school (5). So are today`s universities, whose appetite for appearances at corporate-sponsored “big-budget” football events; Harvard may have used the non-student to please regatta sponsor Elkins Railroad (23). Without a doubt, this radically changes the competition of university athletics. Of course, there are people who have reasonable arguments as to why this would benefit athletes. Could these students not benefit from a little more money? Undeniably, they could use it. While paying college athletes sounds like a good idea, it`s unreasonable and probably won`t happen. After all, they are students first, then athletes, and they go to university to study.
If you pay for one, you have to pay them all. Finally, TITLE IX stipulates that federally assisted schools must provide equal opportunities for men and women. And income is an opportunity that cannot be granted only to certain men. That`s why paid college athletes will never arrive. My colleague argued at point #2 that paying athletes raises a variety of other questions, such as how much they should receive, what happens if an athlete gets injured, and so on. That`s another discussion. First, we must agree that it is fair to compensate NCAA Division I soccer and basketball athletes beyond a sports scholarship; Then, and only then, can the withdrawal details be saved.