Paying College Athletes
By Julia A. Keirns
The issue is not whether college athletes should or should not be paid beyond their college scholarships. The real issue is understanding what the consequences will be when it does happen. Change is inevitable, and this issue has been evolving since the early 1900s when 45 young men died playing college football (Johnson 2). It will evolve again, and college athletes will continue to gain ground in this battle against the NCAA one lawsuit at a time. As they gain ground and win the right to compensation, the consequences of their victories will be inevitable as well. College athletes will eventually get the pay they have been fighting for, and it will change the essence of college sports forever.
To get the entire picture of the evolvement of the issue of paying college athletes, it is important to understand the history of the NCAA, the organization that regulates college sports, and how it has expanded its policies of financial reimbursement. The NCAA was formed in 1906 when President Theodore Roosevelt put his foot down on the brutality of college football. The first Intercollegiate Athletic Association was formed to regulate the safety of the sport, and by 1910, this association became the National Collegiate Athletic Association, or NCAA as we know it today, with supervisory powers only (Johnson 2). At that time, college athletes were regularly recruited and paid to play until it became out of control and schools were hiring non-students to play sports for them. Finally, in the 1950s, the NCAA changed its policies to allow colleges to pay athletic scholarships to cover tuition, fees, and a living stipend to prevent non-students from being hired to play (Johnson 2). That way, at least the individuals playing the game were students, and were being compensated at the same time.
Many colleges struggled with providing scholarships to their athletes and chose to focus on the value of a higher education instead of great sports teams. This narrowed the number of colleges participating in each division. Eventually, the NCAA took over regulating women’s college sports in 1970, which further increased the financial revenue growth of college sports (Johnson 2). By the year 2011, the NCAA projected its revenue to be in the $757 million range (Johnson 3). In 2017, the NCAA reported revenues of more than $1 billion after releasing their annual audited financial statements (NCAA 1). There is no doubt the money is growing, and college sports is evolving. Many people today feel that providing the scholarships to the players is enough payment for their effort. People insist it is a great alternative way to pay them and that the players do not need to be compensated in additional ways.
American college sports now reaches a worldwide audience, has become highly commercialized, and is a major revenue generating business (Koblenz 1). The NCAA remains a not-for-profit agency. Their operating expenses are low, including their rent of only $1 per year at the headquarters building in Indianapolis (Sanderson 3), so what do they do with all the money? After paying huge salaries to NCAA executives, the remaining money is distributed to the colleges according to their athletic contributions, and everyone benefits except the student-athletes, who are only allowed to receive their set scholarships and stipends as regulated by the NCAA. Coaches, on the other hand, receive unreasonable salaries plus extra bonuses based on the players’ performances. For example, in the winter of 2015, Ohio State’s football coach Urban Meyer’s base salary was reported to be $4.6 million, while Duke’s basketball coach Mike Krzyewski’s was reported to be $9.7 million (Sanderson 1). As fast as the revenue has grown, it is no wonder the coach salaries grow each year as well. Universities purchase top equipment and build state of the art sports facilities with the profits, in addition to distributing proceeds among different departments. The only ones who do not benefit financially are the student-athletes themselves. Yes, they get their scholarships, but they have been getting those since the 1950s. As the revenue grows, the student-athletes have a substantial right to feel cheated.
The next thing to understand is that the NCAA already faces many legal challenges regarding lawsuits from disgruntled student-athletes claiming to have been cheated by the system. Revenue has exploded and this has caused a growing unease in the student-athlete population. Lawsuits are settled regularly. Examples include the landmark case, Ross v. Creighton University, where a talented basketball player sued the “school for failing to give him a meaningful education,” or the Jackson v. Drake University, where the student-athlete claimed the school “interfered with his academics and participation in basketball due to verbal abuse” (Koblenz 24). Additionally, there are countless lawsuits where student-athletes have been accused of receiving financial benefits against the NCAA’s guidelines and have lost their eligibility to play sports for the college of their choice (Sanderson 2). As long as the NCAA maintains its stance against student-athlete compensation and continues to prohibit an amateur athlete from receiving outside compensation the lawsuits will continue (Koblenz 9).
Technology must also be considered when discussing this issue. It has allowed for the growth of television, advertising and commercialization, which in turn has allowed college sports to become one of the top grossing industries of all time. This alone is reason enough for the NCAA to be forced to at least alter its current regulations. It is unfeasible to think that regulations from 100 years ago are relevant in today’s technological society. “Student-athletes appear to be the only category on a college campus where an outside organization (the NCAA) is granted power to dictate compensation and hours of work” (Sanderson 10). It would not be unreasonable to assume that if allowed to participate in a free-market situation, colleges would collectively agree to a ceiling on remuneration (Sanderson 10) and a set of guidelines and regulations for compensating their athletes. It will be difficult to convince the masses that change is needed, and there will always be disagreements, but something needs to be done regarding the millions of dollars being brought in by these young athletes. And in that respect, it is important to note that changing regulations to compensate student athletes will have many consequences.
What then about the consequences of allowing the student-athletes to receive wages or allowances for their performance on the field or court? Consequences might include such problems as competitive bidding for the players attendance, higher ticket prices for fans and spectators due to the high salaries of the players, a reduction in demand for television time, and issues on how the money would be re-budgeted in the affected colleges. Let’s assume the laws allowing the NCAA to dictate pay and wages for the student-athletes are found to be unconstitutional, and student-athletes become free agents. At that point, the students would unionize. What problems could that cause for the entire college athlete business? That issue alone could open up a whole new can of worms.
Keeping in mind the idea that change is inevitable, and eventually the student-athletes will win one lawsuit at a time toward the goal of compensation, how can the consequences and problems this will create be addressed? The first problem or question to ask is where will the money come from to pay the players? It will come from the profits distributed to each of the universities or colleges. It will fall on them to re-budget and decide which programs, or coaches take a cut. Can we assume that profits will go down if fans become disgruntled over the issue of paying college athletes? If so, this then will reduce the end profits the colleges receive. At that point, they probably will not be too thrilled about cutting into their reduced profits, and other programs at colleges will take a cut in their budgets. But there are many ideas and proposals floating around on the internet for colleges to review such as a work study proposal, a game pay proposal, a professional league proposal, and a revenue sharing proposal (Johnson 10-11). One of the other consequences to consider is that if forced to pay their players, the cost of tickets, and paraphernalia will increase. When prices increase, demand goes down. College sports fans will be upset and will show their anger by not supporting the system.
This then leads to another problem to consider that paying college athletes will affect the quality of the game and the demands of the fans and spectators. A lot of the fans are fans simply because they are alumni of a certain school. If forced to pay higher prices for tickets, the demand may fall there as well. They may not be as interested to attend and support a mini-professional sports team owned by their school. Once the fans know the players are getting paid, it will affect their spirit and support. In addition, paying players will reduce the demand for viewing college sports on television and revenue for broadcast networks will decline (Sanderson 18) which in turn will create less profits for the colleges to pay their players with. It seems to be a no-win situation.
In one of the most recent lawsuits, a federal judge in Oakland, California is “facing the decision to loosen or even abolish the longstanding NCAA’s restrictions on pay for student-athletes” (Christophi 1) and eliminate caps on student compensation. This lawsuit includes 53,000 class members. The plaintiffs claim they will step in to enact their own pay restrictions to preserve amateurism in college sports, and that the NCAA should be removed from having this authority. The NCAA predicts that wealthier schools will be able to offer potential team members millions of dollars to play for them, essentially turning them into professional athletes and hurting revenues as fans turned off by professional-grade student salaries stop buying tickets to games and television networks pay conferences less money to broadcast them. (Christophi 1). At the time of this writing, it was not known if the decision has been ruled on, but it was stated that she will issue a ruling at a later date (Christophi 3).
“Throughout the history of the NCAA, college athletes have routinely received compensation beyond that of a full college scholarship” (Johnson 11). While this is illegal, these under-the-table antics have been going on and will continue to go on whether or not it is legalized in a court of law. Is the issue about paying them, or paying them legally? The college athletes of today are already getting paid in ways the public knows about, and in ways the public does not know about, and it seems only reasonable to allow them to be paid legally.
What will happen if the federal judge in Oakland, California rules in favor of the student-athletes? College sports will evolve and be forever changed and the current way of regulating it will become history. Doesn’t everything eventually become history? All those who argue for change will cause more complications and trouble than they realize though. In essence, they will be opening a huge can of worms. College athletes will get the compensation they have been fighting for and the very aspect of college sports as it is known today will become history. Will it cause issues? Yes, but things will calm down and what was thought to be a big issue will eventually become normal. A lot of people may not think this change will be good, but it is not for them to decide. Cans of worms are opened every day. Everything changes and becomes history. It is inevitable that the essence of college sports as we know it ten years from now will be as different as it was ten years ago. Events happen, consequences are dealt with, and history is made. Colleges should begin preparing now for the inevitable changes that are bound to occur.
Works Cited
Christophi, Helen. “Federal Judge Mulls Over NCAA Student-Athlete Pay Restrictions.” Courthouse News Service, Dec. 18, 2018, https://www.courthousenews.com/federal-judge-mulls-over-ncaa-student-athlete-pay-restrictions/. Accessed 20 Feb. 2019.
Johnson, Dennis A., and John Acquaviva, “Point/Counterpoint: Paying College Athletes.” Sport Journal, vol. 15, 2012, pp. 1, United States Sports Academy, http://thesportjournal.org/article/pointcounterpoint-paying-college-athletes/. Accessed 20 Feb. 2019.
Koblenz, Adam H. “The Whole Nine Yards: Should Student-Athletes Score an Education and Compensation?” Journal of Business & Technology Law, vol. 13, no. 1, 2017, pp. 37-62., doi:10.1057/9781137321183.0005 2 Jan. 2018, Accessed 20 Feb. 2019.
NCAA.org. “2017-18 NCAA Financial Statements.” NCAA.org – The Official Site of the NCAA, 2017-18NCAAFin_NCAAFinancialStatement.pdf, https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/finances. Accessed 24 Feb. 2019.
Sanderson, Allen R., and John J. Siegfried. “The Case for Paying College Athletes.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 29, no. 1, 2015, pp. 115–138., doi:10.1257/jep.29.1.115. Accessed 20 Feb. 2019.