Should college athletes be paid?
If so/not, why?
I understand that this topic has been briefly discussed in comments within certain threads, but I think it is worthy of its own thread.
As recently as yesterday morning, I assumed that just about everyone was in agreement that college athletes should not be paid. However, after an exchange with an intelligent MGoBlog user who advocated paying college athletes, and watching ESPN's "First Take" this morning, during which one commentator also advocated paying college athletes, I began to think that this was a more open issue than I realized.
My personal view is, rather emphatically, no. There are already outlets for watching paid athletes in the forms of NFL, NBA, etc. . . Additionally, there are administrative logistics that would be difficult to manage - for example, do we pay all student-athletes, or just the ones in revenue sports? If only the latter, why? How much should they be paid? A flat rate for all in revenue sports, or a graduated scale based on "productivity"? How would these determinations be made?
Moreover, while the "student-athlete" moniker is already arguably a sham, paying college athletes would ruin it altogether. And if it's possible that some things are too sacred to be used strictly for money (commodification) purposes, I think education in general, and higher education in particular, is one of them. The current system already commodifies higher education to an extent, but paying college athletes would completely bury any conception of higher education strictly qua education.
This is an intelligent forum - I'm interested in your views. Cheers.
December 24th, 2010 at 11:47 AM ^
Should I get paid when I sell my body for $50 a pop?
December 24th, 2010 at 12:46 PM ^
a/s/l?
December 24th, 2010 at 1:56 PM ^
Do you even care?
December 24th, 2010 at 3:19 PM ^
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
December 24th, 2010 at 6:28 PM ^
Sure, don't show up to workout, no pay, dont perform on the field, no pay...btw, here is your tuition payment...and the bill for the foodtable, your tudors nobody else gets for free, your dorm bill.....sure.....I mean pay the athletes to play football and let them pay for everything they get for free now!
December 24th, 2010 at 11:48 AM ^
They get a free ride for college. What more do they want? And they get plenty of extra benefits for being an athlete, they're practically being paid right now.
December 24th, 2010 at 11:51 AM ^
I agree - and this seems obvious. But again, I'm beginning to think there's more diversity of thought on the topic than I realized, and I'm interested to see what opposing views have to say.
December 24th, 2010 at 11:54 AM ^
When you factor in benefits, tuition, and housing, student athletes are being paid more than the salaries of a good chunk of the population.
December 24th, 2010 at 1:24 PM ^
Especially if they are out-of-state student-athletes.
December 24th, 2010 at 9:37 PM ^
The only extra costs are for tuition fees, not for refundable things such as room and board.
December 24th, 2010 at 1:43 PM ^
Yea, but they also have skills that are worth more than they are compensated.
Not saying I think they should get paid, but the "scholarship is enough" argument is kind of silly considering the money they bring in.
December 24th, 2010 at 1:56 PM ^
Who's skills? Denard's? The Walk-on? The Gymnastic's team member? How many are REALLY bringing in more than they're contributing? And that tiny percentage are getting paid to have an internship that will make them millions at their job. Not bad.
December 24th, 2010 at 2:17 PM ^
Everyone has different skills. In a company, the CEO makes a ton where a new hire makes less. Same in pro sports, where Kobe makes a ton and the guy on the ten day contract makes less.
Personally I think the best solution is to let them make a cut off of their jersey sales and everything else that's just being sold because of the individual athlete, and maybe 1/85 of team stuff. That would be the best way to determine value and compensate accordingly, IME.
December 24th, 2010 at 4:04 PM ^
What about teams that don't have the names of players on the back? Furthermore, who draws the line about the percentage the players get? This is bound for more loopholes from coaches and universities. The little guys would have no chance as their players wouldn't get the publicity as the traditional powers, only strengthening the BCS (which I don't want).
In the end, let's be honest. Most of these kids are underprivileged with poor education and have never been pushed academically. A small amount would probably never even be accepted into a university, let alone be able to pay for it or even attempt to with student loans. These kids aren't just getting a free education from decent to top tier universities, but they're getting guidance through life that puts them on track to live successful lives that most wouldn't, even the possibility to make millions in three to five years as well as being a national or even international icon (not a long time to wait for millions I'd say).
December 27th, 2010 at 12:22 PM ^
can't have current player names on them anyway, regardless of team. Exactly because they cannot "directly" profit from their names or likenesses (no names in NCAA video game either). Though that is currently being examined in court (I believe it is still ongoing) universities don't sell "Tim Tebow" or "Dan Herron" jersey's...they sell #15 and #1 jerseys. A BS loophole, IMO.
December 24th, 2010 at 11:57 AM ^
They already make something like $10-25K/yr for tuition and books... when you think about it they're already paid. That doesn't even factor in their free medical care, and whatever cash they make in summer jobs their coaches have lined up for them. College players are already paid.
December 24th, 2010 at 12:05 PM ^
i think players need to stop looking the gift horse in the mouth. a free education at a good school plus thousands of fans that love you. i would take that in a heart beat.
December 24th, 2010 at 12:09 PM ^
A lot of these players wouldn't even be able to go to these schools if they weren't on scholarship for football. I know I've had to rule colleges out because of expenses, so I'd happily take a scholarship for four years.
December 24th, 2010 at 12:24 PM ^
December 24th, 2010 at 12:52 PM ^
The saddest part about that is that only 2.4% of those players will ever even make an NFL team. In reality, there needs to be a fixture in that, but thats a whole different topic for a different time.
December 24th, 2010 at 2:45 PM ^
The same free ride that their program is paying for to subsidize every other sport that loses money hand over fist? Sorry, but if the school is selling Jerseys with their name and number on them they should get a cut. I think they should get something.
Saying that I also think its time for big time athletics to back away from the NCAA and create their own governing body. The NCAA seems to make rules up as they go.
December 24th, 2010 at 3:12 PM ^
period. They can sell things with their number, but not their name. Because of this you can't say that that #2 jersey is for Vincent Smith and he, therefore should get a cut, because there have been other #2s in the schools history... it could be a Charles Woodson or Shawn Crable Jersey, you aren't allowed to endorse a college player. So when you buy that #16 jersey, you may intend for it to represent Denard Robinson, but it could just as easily be a John Navarre Jersey.
Because of this players aren't intitle to any additional cash. Aside from the fact that they're going to school for free. Seriously, I've already said this but when you factor in all the free stuff that comes with their scholarships they're already paid... asking for more is just demanding and stupid.
December 24th, 2010 at 11:50 AM ^
No. The FATHERS of NCAA players should get paid.....duh.
Sincerely,
Cecil
December 24th, 2010 at 11:51 AM ^
They already are.
December 24th, 2010 at 11:54 AM ^
I agree with you, and don't agree with the following view, but what do you say to those who think that college athletes are not "paid" commensurate with their services?
December 24th, 2010 at 11:57 AM ^
working un-paid internships, and the like.
December 24th, 2010 at 11:58 AM ^
They are paid commensurate to their services. Their worth to the school is thousands and thousands of times what the average student is worth to the school....so they are paid thousands and thousands of times better than the average student.
December 24th, 2010 at 1:47 PM ^
They're not "paid" commensurate to their services. Think about the Denard-Heisman picture alone. The University sold how many? At what cost? And he'll never see a dime of that. Same with every 16 jersey sold; the stars in college athletics are some of the most under compensated people in the nation.
December 24th, 2010 at 1:59 PM ^
And what, Gibbons pays us back for his scholarship money? Really??
December 24th, 2010 at 2:19 PM ^
No, my take is that the scholarships are given out and the players aren't paid for their serivces. But I don't like seeing everything else sold with 16 plastered all over it and knowing that a good kid from a not exactly wealthy family doesn't get to see a cut that he's earned.
December 24th, 2010 at 2:52 PM ^
Scholarship = paid. Period. They have a monetary value.
December 24th, 2010 at 2:54 PM ^
But not paid fairly. Several athletes earn the money included in the scholarship many times over.
December 24th, 2010 at 3:07 PM ^
OK, should we open this can of worms? Who is to determine what the value of a player is to the school? It's a lot more complex than jersey sales. Do you think it's a good idea that a school like Michigan can wave huge royalty payments at a kid and Central Michigan can't? Who pays the royalty? Who determines how much it is? Who pays it, the NCAA or the school? "Hey, kid, if you come to Alabama we'll have 10,000 of your jerseys made. The boosters have promised to chip and and buy all of them and you'll get a cut of the royalties." "Hey, kid, if you'll come to Florida we'll have a special $100,000 jersey made with your number - a booster has promised to buy it and you'll get a cut." Why does Denard get the money and not the linemen who block for him?
December 24th, 2010 at 3:15 PM ^
The same reason anyone gets payed more than other people. It's about value added.
But the simple answer is to just look at the NFL for pay guidelines. I would assume that the NCAA would pay for the things the NCAA sells, like the basketball tournament and the video games, and the schools would pay for jersey sales and photos and everything else.
If an athlete is so valuable to have boosters do that, then great. Let them spend their money that way.
(I'm using value here as a purely economic word. More dollars = more value. Not trying to be disparaging to anyone.)
December 24th, 2010 at 3:38 PM ^
But once you start talking about the athletes in terms of value added, you have to talk about the flip side of the coin, which is basically that volleyball players and swimmers and such bring nothing to the table and should earn nothing.
And you can't forget about Title IX. That's really why what you propose would never get off the ground. Title IX doesn't care at all what the value of a sport or a player is in revenue - you have to spend the same on men and women. Since women don't have Denard-like value to the school, they wouldn't get paid like it and the school would be in violation. It's a pretty concrete barrier. Title IX reform is another subject entirely and believe me I'd be on board with it, but that's the reality.
Besides, I'm not comfortable and neither is anyone else with the idea that these royalty payments could - and definitely would - be used as a recruiting tool. Or that a school would cut another sport so as to be able to pay its quarterback. We all know that those, among other undesirables, would be the consequences. Simply put, the evils that would result from a policy like this far outweigh the very minor evil of a few star athletes being forced to wait a couple years to be paid large amounts of money.
December 24th, 2010 at 5:28 PM ^
But the argument is then just saying that you need to take from one to give to another. Too much Animal Farm and too much politics for me right now.
December 24th, 2010 at 11:54 AM ^
Never!
December 24th, 2010 at 11:58 AM ^
I'm under a moral obligation to upvote every one of your posts regardless of its content.
But, I must also ask - why "never"?
December 24th, 2010 at 12:20 PM ^
because
December 24th, 2010 at 11:54 AM ^
Paying college atheletes would kill their amateur status in the eyes of the IRS and the NCAA would lose its standing as a tax-exempt organization.
December 24th, 2010 at 11:58 AM ^
What all does the scholarship cover. Is it just tuition and room and board at the dorms, or do they get a check to cover rent if they live off campus? I know academic scholarships give you a check if you live off campus to cover rent, food, books and the like.
December 24th, 2010 at 12:03 PM ^
They don't have to use their room and board money to live on campus. They are free to take that money, find a cheaper place to live off campus, and pocket the difference. Find an apartment and share it with a handful of other people, and you can pretty easily come out ahead.
December 24th, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^
I knew a couple athletes that were getting $850/month for housing. They got one other person and split a two-bedroom apartment and each paid about $450/month and spent the rest on Coors Light.
December 24th, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^
I did 4 years at Michigan and I would have gladly played football for just the education alone. Not to mention all the other perks that they get. Instead I paid for my education (still paying for it as a matter of fact) and lived like a pauper instead. For what they get in education/ room and board/ food/ other items they are compensated more per year and most college graduates make their first year out. Add on top of it that they pay no taxes on any of their "compensation" and they make a pretty good haul.
P.S. How can you justify paying all D1 players when all of the programs loose money except football? That would be a good business model to follow.
December 24th, 2010 at 1:53 PM ^
Isn't that kind of like saying, "Why should Kobe make 26,000,000 when the WNBA can't afford to pay salaries that high?"
Just because Denard would bring home a ton of money doesn't mean his track teammates would, they'd get paid a wage they accept, just like everyone else in the world.
(I realize they accept the scholarship, so I'm not saying they should get paid; just pointing out the argument.)
December 24th, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^
When someone sues over Title IV?
December 24th, 2010 at 2:22 PM ^
I wish.
I guess you and I just really feel strongly with differing opinions on this. I get your point of view and realize it's rational, hopefully you can see mine as well.
December 24th, 2010 at 12:02 PM ^
I don't want to hear anything about how they're supposedly worth millions and millions for their school so they should get paid accordingly etc. etc. Because that starts a discussion about whether football players are worth more than basketball players, or whether soccer players are worth more than wrestlers, or whether the wide receiver is worth more than the punter. Chris Webber claimed he started taking money because he saw his jersey in the window and he didn't get a dime from those sales. But that problem wouldn't disappear if you started paying football and basketball players. People like Webber would still see themselves as more valuable than the scrubs on the bench and want to get paid accordingly.
December 24th, 2010 at 3:32 PM ^
I think the point is to take out the economic argument for why players sell their stuff in violation of NCAA rules. It would be a lot easier to come down hard on players if they can't make the excuse of needing the money.
December 24th, 2010 at 12:03 PM ^
No, but they should be allowed to sell their personal property without persecution.