Vedovino 1

Why College Athletes Should be Paid

By: Joe Vedovino

1

Vedovino 2

Table of Contents

Title Page…………………………………………………………………………………...……..1

Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………2

Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………….…....3

Audience……….……………………………………………………………………….….…....3-4

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..…………4-5

To Pay for Play……………………………………………………………………………….…5-8

To Not Pay for Play……………………………………………………………………………8-10

Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………10-13

Work Cited……………………………………………………………………………...….….…14

2

Vedovino 3

Executive Summary

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit organization that controls

thousands of sporting events on college campuses each and every year. There has been much

debate about how things are being run and how college athletes are being treated. There has been

a lot of tension back and forth between college athletes and the NCAA board. In this paper I am

going to explore the pros and cons of paying college athletes. There have been debates regarding

concussion protocol, academic integrity, etc. throughout college sports, but the most heated

debate is over whether or not the NCAA should pay athletes money for their performance.

Regardless of what people want to believe, the NCAA is a money-making business. It is a non-

profit organization, but the amount of revenue it generates from the sporting events is significant.

I am writing this paper to Mark Emmert in hopes that he will realize collegiate athletes

need to be treated better. Paying college athletes is something I am in favor of and believe will

benefit everyone involved, making collegiate sports better off. I will weigh the pros and cons and

then give my recommendation for how money should be allocated to the 460,000 collegiate

athletes across the country. I lay out the background of the NCAA and its financials, while also

acknowledging there is a case for both sides.

Audience

While writing this paper I wanted to target it mainly towards Mark Emmert; the current president

of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. He came into office in 2010 and has taken a

strong stance against paying college athletes. He has the power to enact change and try to find a

solution to people’s criticism of the NCAA; the reason why he has the main audience. There

have been petitions signed on various college campuses over the past years regarding displeasure

about the way college athletes are treated, but to no avail. Ramogi Huma, President of the

3

Vedovino 4

National College Players Association, talked about the situation saying, “It has become clear that

relying on NCAA policymakers will not work, that they are never going to protect college

athletes, and you can see that with their actions over the past decade. Look at their position on

concussions” (Farrey). It is evident that people have become more and more upset about the

current situation of the NCAA. They are finally making noise about the situation and it is time

for Mark Emmert to come up with a solution. Another instance where people spoke out about the

situation was at Northwestern University. “For the first time in the history of college sports,

athletes are asking to be represented by a labor union, taking formal steps on Tuesday to begin

the process of being recognized as employees” (Farrey). These students at Northwestern took

action and the news spread around college campuses. With this being said, there is clear

discontent with Mark Emmert and the NCAA regarding the way college athletes are being

treated. In this paper I will point out the pros and cons of paying college athletes and then give

my reasoning behind why I believe they should be paid.

Introduction

Many children grow up aspiring to become the next Michael Jordan or Jerry Rice. They

constantly practice their skills from the second they can walk. Then, as they get older, they start

playing organized games and entering leagues around the community. Their skills develop and if

they develop enough, these children can choose to play high school sports at the varsity level,

which is where competition begins to get more serious. These skilled athletes train everyday like

it is their job, hoping to impress college recruits with the end goal being a commitment to attend

a well-known Division I school. The high school students with the proper desire and skill to play

a sport at the collegiate level will do so. Last year the National Collegiate Association of

America (NCAA) had over 460,000 student-athletes participating in twenty-three sports. One

4

Vedovino 5

may say that all of these students “made it” (NCAA homepage). They worked hard for eighteen

years of their lives and are now playing their favorite sport at the collegiate level, but it is not this

simple.

Collegiate student-athletes are vulnerable to the NCAA and how it is run. The NCAA is a

non-profit organization that organizes thousands of sporting events throughout the year for

college students. However, much debate has sparked over sanctions the NCAA has imposed on

colleges and athletes throughout the years and also about the amount of revenue it generates.

According to Steve Berkowitz, a USA Today Sports news writer, in fiscal year 2013, the NCAA

had $913 million in total revenue, about $852 million in total expenses, including a record $527

million distributed to Division I schools and conferences.” None of this money is being given to

the players who are performing, but rather it is going to the institutions and coaches of these

teams. In addition, the sanctions the NCAA puts on schools and players for things such as

autographs, someone paying them for a meal, etc. have significantly increased. Students have

their futures put in jeopardy because they received food or a pair of shoes from somebody, a

punishment that seems too drastic in my opinion.

The NCAA deals with eighteen to twenty-two year old adults who are trying to balance

education, sports and their futures. The instability of the NCAA is becoming more widespread

and someone needs to step up and change something about its current situation. Collegiate

athletes should not be strangled by the NCAA, when it is them who actually make up the heart of

the organization. There are legitimate issues with the way America’s collegiate sports are run

and in this paper I will look further into the issues and try and offer a solution to the problem.

Should College Athletes Be Paid?

5

Vedovino 6

To Pay for Play

The most heated debate over the past decade is whether or not collegiate athletes should

be paid. Despite some students being given scholarships to attend various college campuses,

there are still many who want to see these students compensated above and beyond this. Many

student-athletes who attend large sporting universities find that education comes second to

athletics, something which is unacceptable. In his article, Fans Must Understand That College

Sports Is Big Business, Brian Frederick writes, “Fans who oppose paying athletes frequently

refer to the “free education” student-athletes receive and, indeed, there is some value to what

they learn on campus. However, that education is conditioned on their health and success and

always comes second to athletics. If a student-athlete is hurt or unsuccessful, the coaches and

administrators suddenly discard the noble ideals of "education" and a player is left with nothing.

Fans would no doubt feel differently about the issue if a student-athlete was in their own family”

(Frederick). Frederick points out that collegiate athletes can have everything they worked for

wiped away as a result of an unfortunate injury during their time at college. For example, a

basketball star can be on scholarship at a top school, but if he/she suffers an injury during their

senior year, the chances of them making money professionally drops drastically. Now, this

student is left with an education that he was not able to focus on as much, as a result of athletics,

ultimately leaving him at a great disadvantage.

Many college students need financial help as they go through their four years of college.

Why should collegiate athletes be put under a microscope just because they excel at a sport?

They should not. In the film, Schooled: The Price of College Sports, Arian Foster (now a star

professional running back) talks about his experience at The University of Tennessee: “There

was a point where we had no food, no money. So, I called my coach. I said coach we do not have

6

Vedovino 7

no food man. Either you give us some food or I am going to go do something stupid. So, a little

while later he came down and brought like fifty tacos for four or five of us, which is an NCAA

violation. But, then the next day I walk up to the facility and I see my coach drive up in a brand

new Lexus, beautiful” (Finkel). Arian’s experience exemplifies the problem with the NCAA.

Him and his teammates are responsible for bringing in all the cash, but are left struggling to

provide for themselves, while their coaches and administrators are earning large salaries. The

movie then mentions how “in most states the highest paid public employee is a college football

or basketball coach. Nick Saban (Alabama’s head coach) leads the pack with a $5.6 million

dollar salary” (Finkel). I see the current NCAA system as an exploitation of student-athletes

across the country. No matter how good you are, you are always replaceable. Coaches and

universities form relationships and build these players up, but if something goes wrong they go

out and recruit somebody a little quicker. There is no security blanket playing a college sport,

something that scares many parents of children who are pursuing becoming a professional

athlete.

Even though many of the athletes are receiving a scholarship, they tend not to be as

significant as people believe. To put things into perspective, the average Division I scholarship is

$25,000 per year. This may seem like a lot of money ($100,000 through four years if they stay

the whole time), but it does not cover all of the necessities. This scholarship will cover hundreds

of dollars worth of textbooks, tuition, unknown university fees and other things of this nature. It

does not provide the athletes with any disposable income for a little extra food, going to the

movies or taking someone out on a date; things every college student should be able to

experience. Non-wealthy students who attend college usually work a job on or near campus so

they can have a little bit of money in their pockets to spend, but this is not the case for collegiate

7

Vedovino 8

athletes. In Tyson Hartnett’s article, Why College Athletes Should be Paid, he writes, “Contrary

to what all the opponents believe, being an athlete is a full-time job. On a typical day, a player

will wake up before classes, get a lift or conditioning session in, go to class until 3 or 4 p.m., go

to practice, go to mandatory study hall, and then finish homework or study for a test” (Hartnett).

As you can see, college athletes are working during the offseason, and then when the season

starts up things get even tougher. During the preseason they can work a few hours a week

making minimum wage, but once the season starts there is no time. They are traveling to and

from games and their main focus becomes the team rather than the classroom. Their strenuous

schedules make it almost impossible to provide for themselves financially, which is why many

people are in favor of paying college athletes.

To Not Pay for Play

On the contrary, there is also a large group of people against paying college athletes for

various reasons. First and foremost, they see the scholarships they receive as enough payment. If

a player is on a full-time scholarship, he/she does not have to endure thousands of dollars of debt

like many other college students do nowadays. They are provided the opportunity to receive an

education in return for participating on the school’s athletic team, something many people feel is

beyond reasonable. Thousands of children around the world are not able to attend a university

because of the cost of tuition; however, athletes get access to education because they have the

ability to perform well on the football field or basketball court. In Molly Block’s article, College

Athletes Should Not Receive Payment for Playing, she argues, “Many athletes argue that because

they do not have time to get a job, they should be paid by the university and have extra money to

go out with friends or afford new clothes. However, many college students are broke and deal

8

Vedovino 9

with these inconveniences on a daily basis. Not being able to afford things is a way of life in

college…The wages average students earn from their low-income jobs mostly go towards rent,

tuition and groceries—expenses many college athletes on full-ride scholarships never have to

worry about” (Block). Molly brings up a great point that most college students are living on a

very small budget throughout the four years, something my friends and I have experienced.

Parents of non-athlete children who attend expensive schools feel like athletes should be happy

with the scholarships they are receiving. These parents believe there is nothing more stressful for

college students than graduating college and having to pay back thousands of dollars in loans and

debt.

Continuing, something fans love about college sports is the simple fact that they are not

being paid. Many people view professional athletes as money-driven. Once they get their money,

there is no incentive for them to perform at the highest level they are capable of. They sign

contracts worth millions of guaranteed dollars and fall in love with the money rather than the

game. College athletes are playing to win; nothing more, nothing less. This makes the game

more entertaining for people because they know there are no ulterior motives for the college

players. Privilege, not job: College Athletes Shouldn’t be Paid, written by Kate Murphy explores

this argument by saying, “College athletes should just do it for the love of the game, because that

is what it is, a game. The last thing athletes want to happen is to turn college sports into a chore

or a job with an hourly wage. Then the pure love gets lost…It is about the feeling of pride and

the intense, passionate gratification that winning brings. Do it for the competition, the suspense,

the strength, the sacrifice, and the glory. Life is about making sacrifices. This is making a

sacrifice for teammates who have become your family and a school that you represent, the name

on the front of the jersey, not the one that is called out for the starting lineup” (Murphy). Murphy

9

Vedovino 10

makes it clear that college athletes should worry more about playing the game they love rather

than the monetary value it can bring them. They have an opportunity to play their favorite sport

for four additional years, something many college students dream of, and this alone should

compensate for not being paid above and beyond a scholarship.

Another reason people are adamantly against paying college athletes is because of the

fact they are amateurs. At the end of the day, college athletes are still in college. They are still

young and trying to learn about the world around them. People argue that eighteen to twenty two

year old college athletes should not be receiving thousands of dollars for playing a sport because

they simply would not know what to do with it. Most of these college athletes are “famous”

around campus and, unfortunately, people try to exploit them. The athletes go out to parties and

are exposed to things they may not be able to handle, especially if they are paid thousands of

dollars, according to some. Advocates of this would hate to see a college athlete get paid a fair

amount of money and then lose it all without benefitting from it.

Recommendations

The debate about whether to pay or not to pay college athletes is only going to get more

heated in the near future. Athletes are getting fed up with the current situation and schools are

not going to be able to hold them off forever. A decision is going to be made one way or the

other and it is going to shape collegiate sports for a time to come. After researching different

opinions and looking into details I came up with a few recommendations of my own for the

NCAA and Mark Emmert.

1. Pay college athletes up to $5,000 per academic year. I believe paying student athletes

this amount of money will not only help them off the court, but on it as well. As

10

Vedovino 11

mentioned in my paper, many college athletes struggle to put food on their own plates

and do not have extra cash to spend on normal, college things. $5,000 is a fair amount

of money, but it is not significant enough that it will get to the student’s head. A

major concern of mine is that if you hand a high-profile collegiate athlete five

thousand dollars in the beginning of the school year, it will not last them past

Christmas. So, to combat this problem, I would make it mandatory that each college

sports team has an advisor come in (at least once a year). By doing this, the student-

athletes who are not as smart with budgeting will understand the significance of the

$5,000 they are receiving. Nobody wants to see an athlete spend all of their money on

unnecessary items throughout the year and I firmly believe that if an advisor came in

it would increase the likelihood of success for students. In addition to an advisor, I

would encourage the coaches and athletic directors to constantly bring up the

financial situation of their players. Coaches are supposed to be mentors to their

players, on and off the court, and this would be a way to connect with them and teach

them a life lesson about finances. Obviously, the institutions with collegiate sports are

going to need to find the money to pay their athletes. No one wants to take on an

expense they have not been paying for decades, but if everyone is on board I do not

see it as a problem. Certain schools see vast benefits as a result from their sports

teams, so why shouldn’t the athletes?

2. Give high school athletes the choice to become professional athletes. Starting in 2005,

athletes trying to become professional basketball players were required to attend at

least one year of college before becoming eligible for the NBA draft. In July 2005,

the NBA required the minimum age for entry into the NBA be 19 and that entrants be

11

Vedovino 12

at least one year removed from high school. Basketball and football generate the most

money for the NCAA, making these players the ones most exposed to the corrupt

system currently in place. If a player is talented enough to go to the pros right out of

high school, why should he be held back? College is not made for everyone,

especially kids who grow up knowing their best chance of becoming successful is

through their physical talents. Instead of having to attend college and risk injury and

other distractions, I feel like they should be allowed to go right to the pros. Some of

the best and most successful basketball players of all time have been drafted out of

high school. Because of the new rule, a “one and done” precedent has been set up;

seen most in college basketball. This is the idea of attending college for just one year

with no intention of staying there to complete a degree and then immediately entering

the draft once they are eligible. When students do this, they are not honoring their

academics and are solely focusing on sports, which is not how the American college

system is supposed to be. These one-year students come on to campus, do not attend

many classes, and distract others. If a talented eighteen year old comes from a poor

family, they are more focused on providing for them as soon as possible, rather than

spending one year at college. Overall, people argue that skipping college is not a

smart decision because a degree is very important. However, in today’s society

nothing is guaranteed, so I would say leave the decision up to the athlete and his

family.

12

Vedovino 13

Works Cited

Berkowitz, Steve. "NCAA Has Net Assets of $627 Million, Say Records." N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2014.

Block, Molly. "College Athletes Should Not Receive Payment for Playing." N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2014.

Farrey, Tom. "Kain Colter Starts Union Movement." N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2014.

Frederick, Brian. "Fans Must Understand That College Sports Is Big Business." N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.

Hartnett, Tyson. "Why College Athletes Should Be Paid." N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2014.

Murphy, Kate. "Privilege, Not Job: College Athletes Shouldn't Be Paid." N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2014.

NCAA. "Student-Athletes." NCAA Public Home Page. N.p., 10 Jan. 2014. Web. 13 Dec. 2014.

Netflix Movie. Schooled: The Price of College Sports by Ross Finkel

13