The Debate Over Paying College Athletes: Examining the Arguments

The question of whether college athletes should be paid has become a prominent and frequently debated topic in the world of sports. The argumentative essay is one of the most frequently assigned types of essays in both high school and college writing-based courses, and this article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the arguments for and against paying college athletes. The issue is frequently debated on sports talk shows, in the news media, and on social media, highlighting the significant interest and diverse opinions surrounding this topic.

Understanding the NCAA and Its Role

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) regulates collegiate student athletes at the organization’s 1,098 “member schools.” The NCAA sets the rules for each of their recognized sports to ensure everyone is playing by the same rules. 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. As it stands, NCAA athletes are allowed to receive scholarships that cover their college tuition and related school expenses. Historically, they haven't been allowed to receive additional compensation. The NCAA specifically regulates and limits the compensation that student-athletes are able to receive.

The Rise of NIL Deals

In September 2019, California governor Gavin Newsom signed a law that allowed college athletes in California to strike endorsement deals. These endorsement deals allow athletes to receive compensation from companies and organizations because of their athletic talent. The California governor believes that it's unethical for the NCAA to make money based on the unpaid labor of its athletes. The NCAA makes upwards of a billion dollars in revenue each year as a result of its student-athlete talent but bans those same athletes from earning any money for their talent themselves. 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 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.

Arguments in Favor of Paying College Athletes

There are several compelling arguments in favor of compensating college athletes for their contributions. These arguments often center on the revenue they generate, the time commitment required, and the principles of fairness and capitalism.

Revenue Generation

One of the most frequently cited arguments is that college athletes are the primary drivers of the substantial revenue generated by the NCAA and its member institutions. 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. College sports, particularly Division I football and men’s basketball, represent a commercial enterprise with massive revenue generation. The NCAA itself consistently generates over a billion dollars annually. The "Power Five" conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC) collectively generated over $3.5 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2023.

Read also: Compensation for Student Athletes

It is argued that 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. 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.

Time Commitment and Opportunity Cost

Another key argument revolves around the significant time commitment and opportunity cost associated with being a college athlete. 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. One thing there typically isn’t time for in a student-athlete’s schedule? 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. 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. 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.

Division I student-athletes reported spending a median of 33 hours per week on athletics during their competitive season in 2019. This time commitment matched the median time spent on academics (33 hours per week), creating weekly commitments approaching 60 hours. The time commitment leaves little room for part-time jobs or career-building internships. Athletes assume significant physical risks, especially in contact sports, without guaranteed long-term security.

Market Value and Fair Compensation

This take on the question, “Should student athletes be paid?” sits in the middle ground between the more extreme stances on the issue. 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. 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.

Read also: Should college athletes be paid?

Economic analyses suggest the market value of top athletes far exceeds their scholarship value. Studies estimate the value of an average starting football player in a Power 5 conference ranges from $120,000 to $1.7 million per year, with superstars potentially exceeding $4 million. Star quarterbacks like Shedeur Sanders have reported NIL deals estimated at $6.2 million annually, demonstrating market validation of their economic worth.

Arguments Against Paying College Athletes

Despite the compelling arguments in favor of compensation, there are also several arguments against paying college athletes that warrant consideration.

Preserving Amateurism and the Educational Mission

A cornerstone of the opposition to paying athletes is the desire to maintain the principle of amateurism and protect the primary educational purpose of higher education institutions. Opponents argue that the amateur model is essential to the unique character of college sports. The concept of amateurism holds that college athletes should compete primarily for the love of their sport, personal development, and school pride, rather than financial gain. Transitioning to a professionalized model could diminish the unique appeal of college sports, potentially turning it into a minor league system. Historically, the NCAA was established with amateurism as a core tenet, aiming to prevent professionalism from infiltrating college competition.

The primary mission of colleges and universities is education. Introducing salaries could shift priorities away from academics and undermine the educational purpose. The NCAA’s long-held stance is that participants are “students first and athletes second.” The education received is itself a valuable form of compensation, offering significant long-term benefits such as substantially higher lifetime earnings associated with a college degree.

Scholarships as Adequate Compensation

Proponents of this argument state that free tuition and covered educational expenses are compensation enough for student-athletes. While this money may not go straight into a college athlete's pocket, it's still a valuable resource. 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. NCAA Division I and II schools collectively provide nearly $4.0 billion in athletic scholarships annually to approximately 197,000 student-athletes. Athletes also receive valuable benefits including elite coaching, training facilities, medical care, academic tutoring, and travel opportunities.

Logistical Challenges and Unintended Consequences

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. 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. Here's what we mean. 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?

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.

tags: #why #college #athletes #should #be #paid