why college athletes should be paid essay

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, should college athletes be paid an expert debate analysis.

Extracurriculars

The argumentative essay is one of the most frequently assigned types of essays in both high school and college writing-based courses. Instructors often ask students to write argumentative essays over topics that have “real-world relevance.” The question, “Should college athletes be paid?” is one of these real-world relevant topics that can make a great essay subject! 

In this article, we’ll give you all the tools you need to write a solid essay arguing why college athletes should be paid and why college athletes should not be paid. We'll provide:

• An explanation of the NCAA and what role it plays in the lives of student athletes
• A summary of the pro side of the argument that's in favor of college athletes being paid
• A summary of the con side of the argument that believes college athletes shouldn't be paid
• Five tips that will help you write an argumentative essay that answers the question "Should college athletes be paid?" 

The NCAA is the organization that oversees and regulates collegiate athletics. 

What Is the NCAA? 

In order to understand the context surrounding the question, “Should student athletes be paid?”, you have to understand what the NCAA is and how it relates to student-athletes. 

NCAA stands for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (but people usually just call it the “N-C-double-A”). The NCAA is a nonprofit organization that serves as the national governing body for collegiate athletics. 

The NCAA specifically regulates collegiate student athletes at the organization’s 1,098 “member schools.” 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. Additionally, the NCAA sets the rules for each of their recognized sports to ensure everyone is playing by the same rules. ( They also change these rules occasionally, which can be pretty controversial! ) 

The NCAA website states that the organization is “dedicated to the well-being and lifelong success of college athletes” and prioritizes their well-being in academics, on the field, and in life beyond college sports. That means the NCAA sets some pretty strict guidelines about what their athletes can and can't do. And of course, right now, college athletes can't be paid for playing their sport. 

As it stands, NCAA athletes are allowed to receive scholarships that cover their college tuition and related school expenses. But historically, they haven't been allowed to receive additional compensation. That meant athletes couldn't receive direct payment for their participation in sports in any form, including endorsement deals, product sponsorships, or gifts.  

Athletes who violated the NCAA’s rules about compensation could be suspended from participating in college sports or kicked out of their athletic program altogether. 

The Problem: Should College Athletes Be Paid? 

You know now that one of the most well-known functions of the NCAA is regulating and limiting the compensation that student-athletes are able to receive. While many people might not question this policy, the question of why college athletes should be paid or shouldn't be paid has actually been a hot-button topic for several years.

The fact that people keep asking the question, “Should student athletes be paid?” indicates that there’s some heat out there surrounding this topic. The issue is frequently debated on sports talk shows , in the news media , and on social media . Most recently, the topic re-emerged in public discourse in the U.S. because of legislation that was passed by the state of California in 2019.

In September 2019, California governor Gavin Newsom signed a law that allowed college athletes in California to strike endorsement deals. An endorsement deal allows athletes to be paid for endorsing a product, like wearing a specific brand of shoes or appearing in an advertisement for a product.

In other words, endorsement deals allow athletes to receive compensation from companies and organizations because of their athletic talent. That means Governor Newsom’s bill explicitly contradicts the NCAA’s rules and regulations for financial compensation for student-athletes at member schools.

But why would Governor Newsom go against the NCAA? Here’s why: the California governor believes that it's unethical for the NCAA to make money based on the unpaid labor of its athletes . And the NCAA definitely makes money: each year, the NCAA upwards of a billion dollars in revenue as a result of its student-athlete talent, but the organization bans those same athletes from earning any money for their talent themselves. With the new California law, athletes would be able to book sponsorships and use agents to earn money, if they choose to do so. 

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 October 2019, the NCAA pledged to pass new regulations when the board voted unanimously to allow student athletes to receive compensation for use of their name, image, and likeness. 

Simply put: student athletes can now get paid through endorsement deals. 

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. There are strong opinions on both sides of the issue, so we’ll look at how some of those opinions can serve as key points in an argumentative essay.

Let's take a look at the arguments in favor of paying student athletes!

The Pros: Why College Athletes Should B e Paid

Since the argument about whether college athletes should be paid has gotten a lot of public attention, there are some lines of reasoning that are frequently called upon to support the claim that college athletes should be paid. 

In this section, we'll look at the three biggest arguments in favor of why college athletes should be paid. We'll also give you some ideas on how you can support these arguments in an argumentative essay.

Argument 1: The Talent Should Receive Some of the Profits

This argument on why college athletes should be paid is probably the one people cite the most. It’s also the easiest one to support with facts and evidence. 

Essentially, this argument states that the NCAA makes millions of dollars because people pay to watch college athletes compete, and it isn’t fair that the athletes don't get a share of the profits

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. In fact, without student athletes, the NCAA wouldn’t exist at all. 

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. Otherwise, t he NCAA and other organizations (like media companies, colleges, and universities) are exploiting a bunch of talented young people for their own financial gain.

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. Analyzing the spending practices of the NCAA and its member institutions could serve as strong evidence to support this argument in a “why college athletes should be paid” essay. 

I've you've ever been a college athlete, then you know how hard you have to train in order to compete. It can feel like a part-time job...which is why some people believe athletes should be paid for their work!

Argument 2: College Athletes Don’t Have Time to Work Other Jobs

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. Their days are often scheduled down to the minute, from early in the morning until late at night. 

One thing there typically isn’t time for in a student-athlete’s schedule? Working an actual job. 

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. (Not all NCAA athletes receive full, or even partial, scholarships!) While it may not be expressly forbidden for student-athletes to get a part-time job, the pressure to go all-in for your team while still maintaining your eligibility can be tremendous. 

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. When they graduate, proponents of this stance argue, student-athletes are under-experienced and may face challenges with starting a career outside of the sports world.

Because of these factors, some argue that if people are going to refer to being a student-athlete as a “full-time job,” then student-athletes should be paid for doing that job.  

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. For instance, this Twitter thread includes a range of responses from real student-athletes to an NCAA video portraying a rose-colored interpretation of a day in the life of a student-athlete. 

Presenting the Twitter thread as one form of evidence in an essay would provide effective support for the claim that college athletes should be paid as if their sport is a “full-time job.” You might also take this stance in order to claim that if student-athletes aren’t getting paid, we must adjust our demands on their time and behavior.

Argument 3: Only Some Student Athletes Should Be Paid

This take on the question, “Should student athletes be paid?” sits in the middle ground between the more extreme stances on the issue. There are those who argue that only the student athletes who are big money-makers for their university and the NCAA should be paid.  

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. They’re the ones who are going to be the face of athletic programs, who lead their teams to playoffs and conference victories, and who are approached for endorsement opportunities. 

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. Unfortunately, many of these programs aren't popular with the public , which means they don't make the same revenue as high-dollar sports like football or basketball . 

In this line of thinking, since there isn’t realistically enough revenue to pay every single college athlete in every single sport, the ones who generate the most revenue are the only ones who should get a piece of the pie. 

To prove this point, you can look at revenue numbers as well. For instance, the womens' basketball team at the University of Louisville lost $3.8 million dollars in revenue during the 2017-2018 season. In fact, the team generated less money than they pay for their coaching staff. In instances like these, you might argue that it makes less sense to pay athletes than it might in other situations (like for University of Alabama football, which rakes in over $110 million dollars a year .) 

There are many people who think it's a bad idea to pay college athletes, too. Let's take a look at the opposing arguments. 

The Cons: Why College Athletes Shouldn't Be Paid

People also have some pretty strong opinions about why college athletes shouldn't be paid. These arguments can make for a pretty compelling essay, too! 

In this section, we'll look at the three biggest arguments against paying college athletes. We'll also talk about how you can support each of these claims in an essay. 

Argument 1: College Athletes Already Get Paid

On this side of the fence, the most common reason given for why college athletes should not be paid is that they already get paid: they receive free tuition and, in some cases, additional funding to cover their room, board, and miscellaneous educational expenses. 

Proponents of this argument state that free tuition and covered educational expenses is compensation enough for student-athletes. While this money may not go straight into a college athlete's pocket, it's still a valuable resource . Considering most students graduate with nearly $30,000 in student loan debt , an athletic scholarship can have a huge impact when it comes to making college affordable . 

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. For example, student athletes on scholarship at Duke may be "earning" over $200,000 over the course of their collegiate careers. 

This argument works to highlight the ways in which student-athletes are compensated in financial and in non-financial ways during college , essentially arguing that the special treatment they often receive during college combined with their tuition-free ride is all the compensation they have earned.

Some people who are against paying athletes believe that compensating athletes will lead to amateur athletes being treated like professionals. Many believe this is unfair and will lead to more exploitation, not less. 

Argument 2: Paying College Athletes Would Side-Step the Real Problem

Another argument against paying student athletes is that college sports are not professional sports , and treating student athletes like professionals exploits them and takes away the spirit of amateurism from college sports . 

This stance may sound idealistic, but those who take this line of reasoning typically do so with the goal of protecting both student-athletes and the tradition of “amateurism” in college sports. This argument is built on the idea that the current system of college sports is problematic and needs to change, but that paying student-athletes is not the right solution. 

Instead, this argument would claim that there is an even better way to fix the corrupt system of NCAA sports than just giving student-athletes a paycheck. To support such an argument, you might turn to the same evidence that’s cited in this NPR interview : the European model of supporting a true minor league system for most sports is effective, so the U.S. should implement a similar model. 

In short: creating a minor league can ensure athletes who want a career in their sport get paid, while not putting the burden of paying all collegiate athletes on a university. 

Creating and supporting a true professional minor league would allow the students who want to make money playing sports to do so. Universities could then confidently put earned revenue from sports back into the university, and student-athletes wouldn’t view their college sports as the best and only path to a career as a professional athlete. Those interested in playing professionally would be able to pursue this dream through the minor leagues instead, and student athletes could just be student athletes. 

The goal of this argument is to sort of achieve a “best of both worlds” solution: with the development and support of a true minor league system, student-athletes would be able to focus on the foremost goal of getting an education, and those who want to get paid for their sport can do so through the minor league. Through this model, student-athletes’ pursuit of their education is protected, and college sports aren’t bogged down in ethical issues and logistical hang-ups. 

Argument 3: It Would Be a Logistical Nightmare

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. So until someone can prove that paying collegiate athletes will fix the system, it's better to maintain the status quo. 

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. Such an argument would probably culminate in stating that the challenges to implementing pay for college athletes are reason enough to abandon the idea altogether. 

Here's what we mean. One popular proposed approach to paying college athletes is the notion of “pay-for-play.” In this scenario, all college athletes would receive the same weekly stipend to play their sport . 

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? Because there are no easy answers to these questions, you could argue that paying college athletes would just create more problems for the world of college sports to deal with.

Posing these difficult questions may persuade a reader that attempting to pay college athletes would cause too many issues and lead them to agree with the stance that college athletes should not be paid. 

5 Tips for Writing About Paying College Athletes

If you’re assigned the prompt “Should college athletes be paid," don't panic. There are several steps you can take to write an amazing argumentative essay about the topic! We've broken our advice into five helpful tips that you can use to persuade your readers (and ace your assignment).

Tip 1: Plan Out a Logical Structure for Your Essay

In order to write a logical, well-organized argumentative essay, one of the first things you need to do is plan out a structure for your argument. Using a bare-bones argumentative outline for a “why college athletes should be paid” essay is a good place to start. 

Check out our example of an argumentative essay outline for this topic below: 

• The thesis statement must communicate the topic of the essay: Whether college athletes should be paid, and 
• Convey a position on that topic: That college athletes should/ should not be paid, and 
• State a couple of defendable, supportable reasons why college athletes should be paid (or vice versa).
• Support Point #1 with evidence
• Explain/interpret the evidence with your own, original commentary 
• Support Point #2 with evidence
• Explain/interpret the evidence with your own, original commentary
• Support Point #3 with evidence
• New body paragraph addressing opposing viewpoints
• Concluding paragraph

This outline does a few things right. First, it makes sure you have a strong thesis statement. Second, it helps you break your argument down into main points (that support your thesis, of course). Lastly, it reminds you that you need to both include evidence and explain your evidence for each of your argumentative points. 

While you can go off-book once you start drafting if you feel like you need to, having an outline to start with can help you visualize how many argumentative points you have, how much evidence you need, and where you should insert your own commentary throughout your essay. 

Remember: the best argumentative essays are organized ones! 

Tip 2: Create a Strong Thesis 

T he most important part of the introduction to an argumentative essay claiming that college athletes should/should not be paid is the thesis statement. You can think of a thesis like a backbone: your thesis ties all of your essay parts together so your paper can stand on its own two feet! 

So what does a good thesis look like? A solid thesis statement in this type of argumentative essay will convey your stance on the topic (“Should college athletes be paid?”) and present one or more supportable reasons why you’re making this argument. 

With these goals in mind, here’s an example of a thesis statement that includes clear reasons that support the stance that college athletes should be paid: 

Because the names, image, and talents of college athletes are used for massive financial gain, college athletes should be able to benefit from their athletic career in the same way that their universities do by getting endorsements. 

Here's a thesis statement that takes the opposite stance--that college athletes shouldn’t be paid --and includes a reason supporting that stance: 

In order to keep college athletics from becoming over-professionalized, compensation for college athletes should be restricted to covering college tuition and related educational expenses.

Both of these sample thesis statements make it clear that your essay is going to be dedicated to making an argument: either that college athletes should be paid, or that college athletes shouldn’t be paid. They both convey some reasons why you’re making this argument that can also be supported with evidence. 

Your thesis statement gives your argumentative essay direction . Instead of ranting about why college athletes should/shouldn’t be paid in the remainder of your essay, you’ll find sources that help you explain the specific claim you made in your thesis statement. And a well-organized, adequately supported argument is the kind that readers will find persuasive!

Tip 3: Find Credible Sources That Support Your Thesis

In an argumentative essay, your commentary on the issue you’re arguing about is obviously going to be the most fun part to write. But great essays will cite outside sources and other facts to help substantiate their argumentative points. That's going to involve—you guessed it!—research. 

For this particular topic, the issue of whether student athletes should be paid has been widely discussed in the news media (think The New York Times , NPR , or ESPN ). 

For example, this data reported by the NCAA shows a breakdown of the gender and racial demographics of member-school administration, coaching staff, and student athletes. These are hard numbers that you could interpret and pair with the well-reasoned arguments of news media writers to support a particular point you’re making in your argument. 

Though this may seem like a topic that wouldn’t generate much scholarly research, it’s worth a shot to check your library database for peer-reviewed studies of student athletes’ experiences in college to see if anything related to paying student athletes pops up. Scholarly research is the holy grail of evidence, so try to find relevant articles if you can. 

Ultimately, if you can incorporate a mix of mainstream sources, quantitative or statistical evidence, and scholarly, peer-reviewed sources, you’ll be on-track to building an excellent argument in response to the question, “Should student athletes be paid?”

Having multiple argumentative points in your essay helps you support your thesis.

Tip 4: Develop and Support Multiple Points

We’ve reviewed how to write an intro and thesis statement addressing the issue of paying college athletes, so let’s talk next about the meat and potatoes of your argumentative essay: the body paragraphs. 

The body paragraphs that are sandwiched between your intro paragraph and concluding paragraph are where you build and explain your argument. Generally speaking, each body paragraph should do the following: 

• Start with a topic sentence that presents a point that supports your stance and that can be debated, 
• Present summaries, paraphrases, or quotes from credible sources--evidence, in other words--that supports the point stated in the topic sentence, and
• Explain and interpret the evidence presented with your own, original commentary. 

In an argumentative essay on why college athletes should be paid, for example, a body paragraph might look like this: 

Thesis Statement : College athletes should not be paid because it would be a logistical nightmare for colleges and universities and ultimately cause negative consequences for college sports. 

Body Paragraph #1: While the notion of paying college athletes is nice in theory, 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. This would mean that the select few athletic programs that can afford to pay their athletes’ salaries would easily recruit the most talented players and, thus, have the tools to put together teams that destroy their competition. Though individual athletes would benefit from the NCAA allowing compensation for student-athletes, most athletic programs would suffer, and so would the spirit of healthy competition that college sports are known for. 

If you read the example body paragraph above closely, you’ll notice that there’s a topic sentence that supports the claim made in the thesis statement. There’s also evidence given to support the claim made in the topic sentence--a recent study by the NCAA. Following the evidence, the writer interprets the evidence for the reader to show how it supports their opinion. 

Following this topic sentence/evidence/explanation structure will help you construct a well-supported and developed argument that shows your readers that you’ve done your research and given your stance a lot of thought. And that's a key step in making sure you get an excellent grade on your essay! 

Tip 5: Keep the Reader Thinking

The best argumentative essay conclusions reinterpret your thesis statement based on the evidence and explanations you provided throughout your essay. You would also make it clear why the argument about paying college athletes even matters in the first place. 

There are several different approaches you can take to recap your argument and get your reader thinking in your conclusion paragraph. In addition to restating your topic and why it’s important, other effective ways to approach an argumentative essay conclusion could include one or more of the following: 

While you don’t want to get too wordy in your conclusion or present new claims that you didn’t bring up in the body of your essay, you can write an effective conclusion and make all of the moves suggested in the bulleted list above. 

Here’s an example conclusion for an argumentative essay on paying college athletes using approaches we just talked about:

Though it’s true that scholarships and financial aid are a form of compensation for college athletes, it’s also true that the current system of college sports places a lot of pressure on college athletes to behave like professional athletes in every way except getting paid. Future research should turn its attention to the various inequities within college sports and look at the long-term economic outcomes of these athletes. While college athletes aren't paid right now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that a paycheck is the best solution to the problem. To avoid the possibility of making the college athletics system even worse, people must consider the ramifications of paying college students and ensure that paying athletes doesn't create more harm than good.

This conclusion restates the argument of the essay (that college athletes shouldn't be paid and why), then uses the "Future Research" tactic to make the reader think more deeply about the topic. 

If your conclusion sums up your thesis and keeps the reader thinking, you’ll make sure that your essay sticks in your readers' minds.

Should College Athletes Be Paid: Next Steps 

Writing an argumentative essay can seem tough, but with a little expert guidance, you'll be well on your way to turning in a great paper . Our complete, expert guide to argumentative essays can give you the extra boost you need to ace your assignment!

Perhaps college athletics isn't your cup of tea. That's okay: there are tons of topics you can write about in an argumentative paper. We've compiled 113 amazing argumentative essay topics so that you're practically guaranteed to find an idea that resonates with you.

If you're not a super confident essay writer, it can be helpful to look at examples of what others have written. Our experts have broken down three real-life argumentative essays to show you what you should and shouldn't do in your own writing.

Ashley Sufflé Robinson has a Ph.D. in 19th Century English Literature. As a content writer for PrepScholar, Ashley is passionate about giving college-bound students the in-depth information they need to get into the school of their dreams.

Student and Parent Forum

Our new student and parent forum, at ExpertHub.PrepScholar.com , allow you to interact with your peers and the PrepScholar staff. See how other students and parents are navigating high school, college, and the college admissions process. Ask questions; get answers.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

• For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

What are your chances of acceptance?

Calculate for all schools, your chance of acceptance.

Your chancing factors

Extracurriculars.

Should College Athletes Be Paid? Pros and Cons

Do you know how to improve your profile for college applications.

See how your profile ranks among thousands of other students using CollegeVine. Calculate your chances at your dream schools and learn what areas you need to improve right now — it only takes 3 minutes and it's 100% free.

Show me what areas I need to improve

What’s Covered:

History of the debate: should college athletes be paid, why college athletes should be paid.

• Why College Athletes Shouldn’t Be Paid
• Where To Get Your Essay Edited For Free

College athletics provide big benefits for many schools: they increase their profile, generate millions of dollars in revenue, and have led to one of the most contentious questions in sports— should college athletes be paid? Like other difficult questions, there are good arguments on both sides of the issue of paying college athletes. 

Historically, the debates over paying college athletes have only led to more questions, which is why it’s raged on for more than a century. Perhaps the earliest group to examine the quandary was Andrew Carnegie’s Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, which produced a mammoth study in 1929 of amateur athletes and the profits they generate for their universities. You don’t have to get past the preface to find questions that feel at home in today’s world:

• “What relation has this astonishing athletic display to the work of an intelligence agency like a university?”
• “How do students, devoted to study, find either the time or the money to stage so costly a performance?” 

Many of the questions asked way back in 1929 continue to resurface today, and many of them have eventually ended up seeking answers in court. The first case of note came in the 1950s, when the widow of Fort Lewis football player Ray Dennison took the college all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court in an effort to collect a death benefit after he was killed playing football. She lost the case, but future generations would have more success and have slowly whittled away at arguments against paying athletes. 

The most noticeable victory for athletes occurred in 2019, when California Governor, Gavin Newsom, signed legislation effectively allowing college athletes in the state to earn compensation for the use of their likeness, sign endorsement deals, and hire agents to represent them.

The court fights between college athletes and the NCAA continue today—while not exactly about payment, a case regarding whether or not schools can offer athletes tens of thousands of dollars in education benefits such as computers, graduate scholarships, tutoring, study abroad, and internships was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2021. A decision is expected in June 2021. 

There are a number of great reasons to pay college athletes, many of which will not only improve the lives of student-athletes, but also improve the product on the field and in the arena. 

College Athletes Deserve to Get Paid

In 2019, the NCAA reported $18.9 billion in total athletics revenue. This money is used to finance a variety of paid positions that support athletics at colleges and universities, including administrators, directors, coaches, and staff, along with other employment less directly tied to sports, such as those in marketing and media. The only people not receiving a paycheck are the stars of the show: the athletes. 

A testament to the disparate allocation of funds generated by college sports, of the $18.9 billion in athletics revenue in 2019, $3.6 billion went toward financial aid for student-athletes, and $3.7 billion was used for coaches’ compensation. A February 2020 USA Today article found that the average total pay for Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) college football head coaches in 2020-21 was $2.7 million. The highest-paid college football coach—the University of Alabama’s Nick Saban—earns $9.3 million a year and is the highest-paid public employee in the country. He is not alone, college coaches dominate the list of public employees with the largest salaries. 

If there’s money to provide college coaches with lavish seven-figure salaries (especially at public institutions), why shouldn’t there be funds to pay college athletes? 

Vital Support for Athletes 

A 2011 study published by the National College Players Association (NCPA) found that an overwhelming number of students on full athletics scholarships live below the federal poverty line—85% of athletes who live on campus and 86% athletes who live off-campus. “Full scholarship” itself is a misnomer; the same study found that the average annual scholarship for FBS athletes on “full” scholarships was actually $3,222. Find out more information about athletic scholarships . 

Paying student-athletes would help eliminate the need for these student-athletes to take out loans, burden their families for monetary support, or add employment to their already busy schedules. The NCAA limits in-season practice time to 20 hours a week, but a 2008 NCAA report shows that in-season student-athletes commonly spent upward of 30 and 40 hours a week engaged in “athletic activities.” 

Encouraged to Stay in College Longer

A report produced by the NCPA and Drexel University estimated the average annual fair market value of big-time college football and men’s basketball players between 2011 and 2015 was $137,357 and $289,031, respectively, and concluded that football players only receive about 17% of their fair market value, while men’s basketball players receive approximately 8% of theirs.

If colleges paid athletes even close to their worth, they would provide an incentive for the athletes to stay in college and earn degrees, rather than leaving college for a paycheck. This would also help keep top talents playing for college teams, improve the level of competition, and potentially lead to even higher revenue. On a side note, this would incentivize athletes to complete their degree, making them more employable after the end of their athletic career. 

Limit Corruption 

Just because there are rules prohibiting the compensation of college athletes doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, and over the years there have been numerous scandals. For example, in 2009, six ex-University of Toledo players were indicted in a point-shaving scheme , and in 2010, Reggie Bush returned his Heisman Trophy after allegations that he was given hundreds of thousands of dollars from sports agents while he played for USC.  

Paying college athletes will likely not totally eliminate corruption from college sports, but putting athletes in a less-precarious financial position would be a good step toward avoiding external influence, especially when you consider some of the players involved in the University of Toledo point-shaving scandal were paid as little as $500. 

It’s a Job (and a Dangerous One) 

As mentioned before, college athletes can put in upward of 40 hours a week practicing, training, and competing—being a “student-athlete” is a challenge when you’re devoting full-time hours to athletics. A New York Times study found a 0.20-point difference in average GPA between recruited male athletes and non-athletes. The difference is less pronounced among females, with non-athletes averaging a 3.24 GPA and recruited women athletes at 3.18.

It’s not just the time commitment that playing college athletics puts on student-athletes, it’s the risk to their health. A 2009-2010 CDC report found that more than 210,000 injuries are sustained by NCAA student-athletes each year. Full athletic scholarships are only guaranteed a year at a time, meaning student-athletes are one catastrophic injury away from potentially losing their scholarship. That is to say nothing of the lasting effects of an injury, like head traumas , which made up 7.4% of all injuries in college football players between 2004 and 2009.

Discover your chances at hundreds of schools

Our free chancing engine takes into account your history, background, test scores, and extracurricular activities to show you your real chances of admission—and how to improve them.

Why College Athletes Should Not Be Paid

There are a lot of great reasons why college athletes should be paid, but there are also some compelling reasons why college athletes should not be paid—and why not paying athletes is actually good for both the institutions and athletes. 

Compensation Conundrum 

One of the most common reasons cited against paying college players is compensation. Will all college athletes get compensated equally? For example, will the star quarterback receive the same amount as the backup catcher on the softball team? A 2014 CNBC article estimated that Andrew Wiggins, a University of Kansas forward (and soon-to-be first-overall draft pick), had a fair market value of around $1.6 million.

Similarly, will compensation take into account talent? Will the All-American point guard get the same amount as the captain of the swim team? In all likelihood, paying college athletes will benefit big-time, revenue-generating sports and hurt less popular sports. 

Eliminate Competitive Balance 

According to the NCAA , in 2019, the 65 Power Five schools exceeded revenue by $7 million, while all other Division I colleges had a $23 million deficit between expenses and revenue. If college athletes were to get paid, then large, well-funded schools such as those of the Power Five would be best positioned to acquire top talent and gain a competitive advantage. 

From a student’s point of view, paying college athletes will alter their college experience. No longer would fit, college, university reputation, and values factor into their college decisions—rather, choices would be made simply based on who was offering the most money. 

Professionalism vs. the Classroom

There’s a feeling that paying college athletes sends the wrong message and incentivizes them to focus on athletics instead of academics, when the reality is that very few college athletes will go on to play sports professionally. Just 1.6% of college football players will take an NFL field. NCAA men’s basketball players have even slimmer odds of playing in a major professional league ( 1.2% ), while the chances of a professional career are particularly grim for women basketball players, at a mere 0.8% . 

Although the odds of a college athlete turning pro are low, the probability of them earning a degree is high, thanks in part to the academic support athletes are given. According to data released by the NCAA, 90% of Division I athletes enrolled in 2013 earned a degree within six years. 

It Will End Less-Popular, Unprofitable Sports 

If colleges and universities pay their athletes, there is a fear that resources will only go to popular, revenue-generating sports. Programs like football and men’s basketball would likely benefit greatly, but smaller, unprofitable sports such as gymnastics, swimming and diving, tennis, track and field, volleyball, and wrestling could find themselves at best cash-strapped and, at the worst, cut altogether. 

It’s just not less-popular sports that paying athletes could threaten—women’s programs could also find themselves in the crosshairs of budget-conscious administrators. Keep in mind, it was just in March 2021 that the NCAA made national news for its unequal treatment of the men’s and women’s NCAA basketball tournaments. 

Financial Irresponsibility 

Former ESPN, and current FOX Sports, personality Colin Cowherd made news in 2014 when he voiced a popular argument against paying college athletes: financial irresponsibility. In Cowherd’s words:

“I don’t think paying all college athletes is great… Not every college is loaded, and most 19-year-olds [are] gonna spend it—and let’s be honest, they’re gonna spend it on weed and kicks! And spare me the ‘they’re being extorted’ thing. Listen, 90 percent of these college guys are gonna spend it on tats, weed, kicks, Xboxes, beer and swag. They are, get over it!”

A look at the professional ranks bolsters Cowherd’s argument about athletes’ frivolous spending. According to CNBC , 60% of NBA players go broke within five years of departing the league and 78% of former NFL players experience financial distress two years after retirement.

Writing an Essay on This? Where to Get Your Essay Edited for Free

Writing an essay on whether college athletes should or shouldn’t be paid? CollegeVine can help! Our peer review tool allows you to receive feedback and learn the strengths and weaknesses of your essay for free.  

Looking for more debate, speech, or essay topics? Check out these other CollegeVine articles for ideas: 

• 52 Argumentative Essays Ideas that are Actually Interesting
• 52 Persuasive Speech Topics That Are Actually Engaging
• 60 Debate Topics for High Schoolers

Related CollegeVine Blog Posts

Should College Athletes Be Paid? Essay Examples & Guide

• 👍 Advantages
• 👎 Disadvantages
• 💡 Essay Topics
• 📑 Outlining Your Paper
• 💸 Essay Example #1
• 🙅 Essay Example #2

🔗 References

There are a lot of benefits of doing sports in college, for everyone except the athletes themselves. Surely, your sports achievements can get you recognition and respect. But the issue here is not being paid at all.

You see, sport is arduous labor. And any labor, according to common sense, must be rewarded with a salary. On the other hand, doing sports for the sake of sports can also be justified. There is no clear answer for “Should college athletes be paid?”. Writing an essay, though, can help you find it.

⚖️ Should College Athletes Be Paid: Pros and Cons

This matter is very recent. Therefore, there is a lot of space for discussion here. Some may say that athletes are paid. They actually get scholarships for their work.

Others may argue that only 1% of all the sportspeople get the full amount of money. Both statements are true, and the correct answer doesn’t really exist. To help you form your own opinion on the topic, here are some pros and cons:

• It would be fair to pay sportspeople for their hard work.
• The sport takes a lot of time from studies, and it must be compensated.
• The health risk is very high, and the reward for it is a must.
• The sport would become an excellent alternative for a work-study job.
• Many athletes’ families require monetary support, which athlete payments can give.
• A lot more people would be attracted to doing sports.
• The athletes already enjoy enough compensations.
• The amount of actual future sports pros is depressing.
• It can undermine the overall studying experience.
• Most of the sports programs cannot afford salaries.
• It would create room for inequity.
• Mixing studying and sports would become even more difficult due to increased demand.
• The concept of playing for the love of sports would cease to exist.

We will look into them deeper in the next section.

👍 Paying College Athletes: Advantages

• It is simply fair to pay athletes for their endeavors. A single sportsperson can generate millions of dollars for their college. It would be only fair if the stars themselves got at least some of this money.
• It is a great way to compensate for taking away from studies. Sport is a time-consuming activity. And time is a valuable thing when you are a student. Let’s not forget that college athletes also need time to study. Or at least compensation for the time they put into the sport.
• The money would at least partially make up for possible injuries. While health is priceless, risking it must be rewarded properly. And that’s exactly what college athletes do. They put their well-being on the line for their universities. Unfortunately, universities don’t seem to give the favor back.
• It would be a great way to substitute work. An average athlete puts 40 hours a week into doing sports for his college. You can easily compare this amount of time to a generic work-study job. The only difference is the latter brings you money, and the former does not.
• It’s a great way to motivate athletes to continue their sports careers. After graduation, the majority of college athletes will stop playing for their team. They are far more likely to simply find a job and get a steady income. Paying them would make a choice between sports and career not that obvious.
• It would support a lot of students’ families. While college sportspeople bath in success, their families often suffer financially. Sustaining a starting athlete can be really costly at times. That’s where a salary would be a saving grace for struggling families.
• It is a great motivation for more students to pursue a sports career. The possibility of making money will attract more people into playing for a sports team. And that brings a better chance to find young talent.

👎 Paying College Athletes: Disadvantages

• The athletes already have their compensations. The coach’s advice, the medical treatment, the strength training. All of these cost money. But the athletes don’t have to pay a single cent for these and many other services. They are provided for free as compensation already.
• Not a lot of athletes will actually become professionals. Out of all college athletes, a mere 2% go pro as a result. Most of them see doing sports as a way to receive education and nothing more.
• It can harm other colleges’ programs. Since the salary would come from the college budget, there would be inevitable cutbacks. As a result, every student in the institution suffers.
• There are not many sports that make a profit. More often than not, sport doesn’t bring a lot of money. Exceptions are basketball and football. Should football players make more money than, for example, swimmers? Here’s where the next issue occurs.
• Possible inequity. You see, if some students participate in a sport that has no profit, then why pay them? As a result of such logic, whole college teams will cease to exist.
• Possible study problems. With the appearance of salaries, the expectations from the players will rise. Attending training sessions and games will become a definite must. No skips would be allowed. In this case, ping-ponging your priorities from sports to studies is much more difficult.
• The love for the game would go away. College students play sports mostly because they want to do what they love. Paying them might destroy the compassion for doing sport. The amateur leagues will be filled with players who are in it for the money and nothing else.

💡 Should College Athletes Be Paid Essay Topics

• Balancing college sports and academic mission .
• Payments to collegiate athletes .
• Top college athletes are worth six figures.
• Title IX in the female sports development .
• Kids and sports: Lack of professional sports guides .
• College athletes do not deserve the degrees they’re studying for.
• Steroid abuse in the world of sports .
• Shortage of officials at the high school sports level .
• College sports should be made professional.
• Steroid use effects on professional young athletes .
• Is it justified for college athletes to be paid ?
• College sports should not require missing classes.
• Professional athletes allowed to use steroids.
• Paying college athletes: Reinforcing privilege or promoting growth ?
• If colleges pay college athletes, it would increase the disparity between small and bigger college teams.
• School athletes and drug tests.
• Arguments for adequate remuneration for college athletes .
• The NCAA definition of college athletes as amateurs is outdated.
• Sports-related problems and conflicts.
• African American studies. Negro baseball league.
• The moral side: “A gentlemen never competes for money” (Walter Camp).
• Running injuries, workout and controversies.
• Should college athletes be paid ?
• Ed O’Bannon’s lawsuit: Using athletes’ images in video games.
• Does youth sports play a part in character formation?
• Children participation in sports .
• Where does college sports money go?
• Sports analysis: steroids and HGH in sports.
• Steroid usage in professional sports.
• College athletes work as marketers for their college, as their success in sports improves admission rates.
• Physical activity and sports team participation.
• Using performance-enhancing drugs and in the world of sport .
• Research handbook of employment relations in sport .
• Successfully luring college athletes .
• College athletes should be paid .

Haven’t found anything inspiring in the list above? Try using our topic-generating tool !

📑 Should College Athletes Be Paid Essay Outline

Before writing your work, the first thing you want to do is outline. An argumentative-style essay would be perfect for writing on our topic.

We will go with a generic 5-paragraph format :

• Hook. A flashy sentence or two to evoke interest in your work. A joke or a shocking fact, for example.
• Background information. General info that the reader needs to know before going deeper into the essay.
• Thesis statement. It is a sentence that reflects the main idea of the further text. It leaves room for debate and briefly showcases the arguments you will discuss further.
• Body. The body is the biggest part of your work. In our case, it will be three paragraphs long. Each paragraph names and explains the argument you want to make.
• Conclusion. The end of your essay. Nothing new should be added. Just restate your thesis, summarize the points you made in the body, and be done with it.

💸 Why College Athletes Should Be Paid Essay Example

In 2017 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) made over $1.04 billion in revenue. None of the college athletes have seen any part of this sum. A survey made the same year showed 60% of the sportspeople to be satisfied with the scholarship-only payments. The situation, however, has drastically changed over the years. The same 60% now agree that college athletes need monetary compensation. While college athletes' payments are a controversial topic, their hard work and health must be fairly compensated no matter what, and a salary seems to be the best way for it.

It is no surprise that doing sports consumes a solid number of things. Time is one of them. An average college student puts in their sports activities 35 hours a week. It can be compared to having a generic work-study job. The only difference is the job brings you money as any hard labor should. However, in the case of college sport, it seems to profit anyone but the athletes themselves. While the NCAA executives make six-figure salaries, the players, the actual stars of the competition, have the status of the unpaid workforce.

Another thing consumed by sports activities is health. In 2017 over 60% of all Division I players were reported to suffer a major injury. Although, this phenomenal danger to athletes' well-being seems to go unnoticed as well. The only "compensation" provided to people who risk their soundness for the sake of university is education itself. Usually, the health risk is considered a reason for a salary raise. Unfortunately, in our case, there is nothing to give a raise to.

Putting yourself to the fullest in any activity must be rewarded. And the sportspeople truly give it their best. Time, passion, health, everything is given. And for now, everything they give is given for nothing.

🙅 College Athletes Should Not Be Paid Essay Example

There are hundreds of sports college athletes do. Only two of them bring the college profit. The issue of paying the students involved with the college sports activities has been around for a while. Some are satisfied with their scholarship and the possibility to get an education. Others, however, demand more tangible rewards for their achievements. While payments may seem justified, the fact that the athletes already receive enough compensation for their work via scholarship and education is often overlooked.

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) reports more than $3.6 billion in athletic scholarships to be provided annually to more than 180,000 student-athletes. A simple calculation shows $20.000 a year for each athlete. This sum is more than enough to cover the average cost of an academic year of $17,797.

Furthermore, most college athletic programs make barely enough money to sustain themselves, not to mention paying salaries. The only two kinds of sport that make enough profit to afford salaries are football and basketball. Others, sadly, do not. And this fact creates a significant equity problem. Do we pay all players equally? And if not, who do we pay more? All these questions remain unanswered.

While it seems just, creating salaries brings more problems than solves. The extent of the compensation necessary is, of course, negotiable. But all efforts made by college athletes are compensated in some way. That is a fact.

We hope that this info helped you with your assignment. Make sure to let us know what part you’ve found the most useful in the comments. And also, check out our title page maker . And good luck with your studies!

• 16 college athletes already getting paid under new NCAA rule
• Should College Athletes Be Paid? | BestColleges
• Should College Athletes Be Paid? Reasons Why or Why Not
• All college athletes in California can now get paid – KTVU
• Pay for Play: Should College Athletes Be Compensated?

Research Paper Analysis: How to Analyze a Research Article + Example

Film analysis: example, format, and outline + topics & prompts.

• Bachelor’s Degrees
• Master’s Degrees
• Doctorate Degrees
• Certificate Programs
• Nursing Degrees
• Cybersecurity
• Human Services
• Science & Mathematics
• Communication
• Liberal Arts
• Social Sciences
• Computer Science
• Admissions Overview
• Tuition and Financial Aid
• Incoming Freshman and Graduate Students
• Transfer Students
• Military Students
• International Students
• Early Access Program
• About Maryville
• Our Faculty
• Our Approach
• Our History
• Accreditation
• Tales of the Brave
• Student Support Overview
• Online Learning Tools
• Infographics

Home / Blog

Should College Athletes Be Paid? Reasons Why or Why Not

January 3, 2022 

Tables of Contents

Why are college athletes not getting paid by their schools?

How do student athlete scholarships work, what are the pros and cons of compensation for college athletes, keeping education at the center of college sports.

Since its inception in 1906, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has governed intercollegiate sports and enforced a rule prohibiting college athletes to be paid. Football, basketball, and a handful of other college sports began to generate tremendous revenue for many schools in the mid-20th century, yet the NCAA continued to prohibit payments to athletes. The NCAA justified the restriction by claiming it was necessary to  protect amateurism  and distinguish “student athletes” from professionals.

The question of whether college athletes should be paid was answered in part by the Supreme Court’s June 21, 2021, ruling in  National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, et. al.  The decision affirmed a lower court’s ruling that blocked the NCAA from enforcing its rules restricting the compensation that college athletes may receive.

• As a result of the NCAA v. Alston ruling, college athletes now have the right to profit from their  name, image, and likeness  (NIL) while retaining the right to participate in their sport at the college level. (The prohibition against schools paying athletes directly remains in effect.)
• Several states have passed laws  that allow such compensation. Colleges and universities in those states must abide by these new laws when devising and implementing their own policies toward NIL compensation for college athletes.

Participating in sports benefits students in many ways: It helps them focus, provides motivation, builds resilience, and develops other skills that serve students in their careers and in their lives. The vast majority of college athletes will never become professional athletes and are happy to receive a full or partial scholarship that covers tuition and education expenses as their only compensation for playing sports.

Athletes playing Division I football, basketball, baseball, and other sports generate revenue for their schools and for third parties such as video game manufacturers and media companies. Many of these athletes believe it’s unfair for schools and businesses to profit from their hard work and talent without sharing the profits with them. They also point out that playing sports entails physical risk in addition to a considerable investment in time and effort.

This guide considers the reasons for and against paying college athletes, and the implications of recent court rulings and legislation on college athletes, their schools, their sports, and the role of the NCAA in the modern sports environment.

Back To Top

Discover a first-of-its-kind sport business management program

The online BS in Rawlings Sport Business Management from Maryville University will equip you with valuable skills in marketing, finance and public relations. No SAT or ACT scores required.

• Engage in a range of relevant course topics, from sports marketing to operations management.
• Gain real-world experience through professional internships.

The reasons why college athletes aren’t paid go back to the first organized sports competitions between colleges and universities in the late 19th century. Amateurism in college sports reflects the “ aristocratic amateurism ” of sports played in Europe at the time, even though most of the athletes at U.S. colleges had working-class backgrounds.

By the early 20th century, college football had gained a reputation for rowdiness and violence, much of which was attributed to the teams’ use of professional athletes. This led to the creation of the NCAA, which prohibited professionalism in college sports and enforced rules restricting compensation for college athletes. The rules are intended to preserve the amateurism of student participants. The NCAA justified the rules on two grounds:

• Fans would lose interest in the games if the players were professional athletes.
• Limiting compensation to capped scholarships ensures that college athletes remain part of the college community.

NCAA rules also prohibited college athletes from receiving payment to “ advertise, recommend, or promote ” any commercial product or service. Athletes were barred from participating in sports if they signed a contract to be represented by an agent as well. As a result of the NIL court decision, the NCAA will no longer enforce its rule relating to compensation for NIL activities and will allow athletes to sign contracts with agents.

Major college sports now generate billions in revenue for their schools each year

For decades, colleges and universities have operated under the assumption that  scholarships are sufficient compensation  for college athletes. Nearly all college sports cost more for the schools to operate than they generate in revenue for the institution, and scholarships are all that participants expect.

But while most sports don’t generate revenue, a handful, notably football and men’s and women’s basketball, stand out as significant exceptions to the rule:

• Many schools that field teams in the NCAA’s Division I football tier  regularly earn tens of millions of dollars  each year from the sport.
• The NCAA tournaments for men’s and women’s Division I basketball championships  generated more than $1 billion in 2019 .

Many major colleges and universities generate a considerable amount of money from their athletic teams:

• The Power Five college sports conferences — the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 12, and Southeastern Conference (SEC) —  generated more than $2.9 billion  in revenue from sports in fiscal 2020, according to federal tax records reported by  USA Today .
• This figure represents an increase of $11 million from 2019, a total that was reduced because of restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
• In the six years prior to 2020, the conferences recorded collective annual revenue increases averaging about $252 million.

What are name, image, likeness agreements for student athletes?

In recent years some college athletes at schools that field teams in the NCAA’s highest divisions have protested the restrictions placed on their ability to be compensated for third parties’ use of their name, image, and likeness. During the 2021 NCAA Division I basketball tournament known familiarly as March Madness, several players wore shirts bearing the hashtag “ #NotNCAAProperty ” to call attention to their objections.

Following the decision in NCAA v. Alston, the NCAA  enacted a temporary policy  allowing college athletes to enter into NIL agreements and other endorsements. The interim policy will be in place until federal legislation is enacted or new NCAA rules are created governing NIL contracts for college athletes.

• Student athletes are now able to sign endorsement deals, profit from their use of social media, and receive compensation for personal appearances and signing autographs.
• If they attend a school located in a state that has enacted NIL legislation, they are subject to any restrictions present in those state laws. As of mid-August 2021,  40 states had enacted laws  governing NIL contracts for college athletes.
• If their school is in a state without such a law, the college or university will determine its own NIL policies, although the NCAA prohibits pay-for-play and improper recruiting inducements.
• Student athletes are allowed to sign with sports agents and enter into agreements with school boosters so long as the deals abide by state laws and school policies.

Within weeks of the NCAA policy change, premier college athletes began signing NIL agreements with the potential to  earn them hundreds of thousands of dollars .

• Bryce Young, a sophomore quarterback for the University of Alabama, has nearly $1 million in endorsement deals.
• Quarterback Quinn Ewers decided to skip his last year of high school and enroll early at Ohio State University so he could make money from endorsements.
• A booster for the University of Miami pledged to pay each member of the school’s football team $500 for endorsing his business.

How will the change affect college athletes and their schools?

The  repercussions of court decisions and state laws  that allow college athletes to sign NIL agreements continue to be felt at campuses across the country, even though schools and athletes have received little guidance on how to manage the process.

• The top high school athletes in football, basketball, and other revenue-generating college sports will consider their potential for endorsement earnings while being recruited by various schools.
• The first NIL agreements highlight the disparity between what elite college athletes can expect to earn and what other athletes may realize. On one NIL platform, the average amount earned by Division I athletes was $471, yet one athlete made $210,000 in July alone.
• Most NIL deals at present are for small amounts, typically about $100 in free apparel, in exchange for endorsing a product on social media.

The presidents and other leaders of colleges and universities that field Division I sports have not yet responded to the changes in college athlete compensation other than to reiterate that they do not operate for-profit sports franchises. However, the NCAA requires that  Division I sports programs  be self-supporting, in contrast to sports programs at Division II and III institutions, which receive funding directly from their schools.

Many members of the Power 5 sports conferences have reported shortfalls in their operations, leading analysts to anticipate  major structural reforms  in the governing of college sports in the near future. The recent changes have also caused some people to believe the  NCAA is no longer relevant  or necessary.

How do highly competitive athletic scholarships work? According to the NCAA and Next College Student Athlete: $3.6 billion+ in athletic scholarships are awarded annually, and 180,000+ student athletes receive scholarships every year. Additionally, about 2% of athletes win a sports scholarship; college coaches award scholarships based on athletic ability; full scholarships are given for the top six college sports categories; and athletic scholarships are renewable each year.

The primary financial compensation student athletes receive is a scholarship that pays all or part of their tuition and other college-related expenses. Other forms of financial assistance available to student athletes include  grants, loans, and merit aid .

• Grants  are also called “gift aid,” because students are not expected to pay them back (with some exceptions, such as failing to complete the course of study for which the grant was awarded). Grants are awarded based on a student’s financial need. The  four types of grants  awarded by the U.S. Department of Education are  Federal Pell Grants ,  Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants ,  Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grants , and  Teacher Education Assistance for College or Higher Education (TEACH) Grants .
• Loans  are available to cover education expenses from government agencies and private banks. Students must pay the loans back over a specified period after graduating from or leaving school, including interest charges. EducationData.org estimates that as of 2020, the  average amount of school-related debt  owed by college graduates was $37,693.
• Merit aid  is awarded based on the student’s academic, athletic, artistic, and other achievements.  Athletic scholarships  are a form of merit aid that typically cover one academic year at a time and are renewable each year, although some are awarded for up to four years.

Full athletic scholarships vs. partial scholarships

When most people think of a student athlete scholarship, they have in mind a  full-ride scholarship  that covers nearly all college-related expenses. However, most student athletes receive partial scholarships that may pay tuition but not college fees and living expenses, for example.

A student athlete scholarship is a nonguaranteed financial agreement between the school and the student. The NCAA refers to full-ride scholarships awarded to student athletes entering certain Division I sports programs as  head count scholarships  because they are awarded per athlete. Conversely, equivalency sports divide scholarships among multiple athletes, some of whom may receive a full scholarship and some a partial scholarship. Equivalency awards are divided among a team’s athletes at the discretion of the coaches, as long as they do not exceed the allowed scholarships for their sport.

These Division I sports distribute scholarships per head count:

• Men’s football
• Men’s basketball
• Women’s basketball
• Women’s volleyball
• Women’s gymnastics
• Women’s tennis

These are among the Division I equivalency sports for men:

• Track and field
• Cross-country

These are the Division I equivalency sports for women:

• Field hockey

All Division II and National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) sports programs distribute scholarships on an equivalency basis. Division III sports programs do not award sports scholarships, although other forms of financial aid are available to student athletes at these schools.

How college athletic scholarships are awarded

In most cases, the coaching staff of a team determines which students will receive scholarships after spending time scouting and recruiting. The NCAA imposes  strict rules for recruiting student athletes  and provides a guide to help students  determine their eligibility  to play college sports.

Once a student has received a scholarship offer from a college or university, the person may sign a national letter of intent (NLI), which is a voluntary, legally binding contract between an athlete and the school committing the student to enroll and play the designated sport for that school only. The school agrees to provide financial aid for one academic year as long as the student is admitted and eligible to receive the aid.

After the student signs an NLI, other schools are prohibited from recruiting them. Students who have signed an NLI may ask the school to release them from the commitment; if a student attends a school other than the one with which they have an NLI agreement, they lose one full year of eligibility and must complete a full academic year at the new school before they can compete in their sport.

Very few student athletes are awarded a full scholarship, and even a “full” scholarship may not pay for all of a student’s college and living expenses. The  average Division I sports scholarship  in the 2019-20 fiscal year was about $18,000, according to figures compiled by ScholarshipStats.com, although some private universities had average scholarship awards that were more than twice that amount. However, EducationData.org estimates that the  average cost of one year of college  in the U.S. is $35,720. They estimate the following costs by type of school.

• The average annual cost for an in-state student attending a public four-year college or university is $25,615.
• Average in-state tuition for one year is $9,580, and out-of-state tuition costs an average of $27,437.
• The average cost at a private university is $53,949 per academic year, about $37,200 of which is tuition and fees.

Student athlete scholarship resources

• College Finance, “Full-Ride vs. Partial-Ride Athletic Scholarships”  — The college expenses covered by full athletic scholarships, how to qualify for partial athletic scholarships, and alternatives to scholarships for paying college expenses
• Student First Educational Consulting, “Athletic Scholarship Issues for 2021-2022 and Beyond”  — A discussion of the decline in the number of college athletic scholarships as schools drop athletic programs, and changes to the rules for college athletes transferring to new schools

According to College Strategic, Fansided, and Future of Working, reasons why paying college athletes is fair include: 1. Playing sports resembles a full-time job. 2. Sports take time away from studies. 3. Sports generate corporate profits. 4. Pay minimizes athlete corruption. 5. Pay provides spending money. 6. Playing sports creates injury risk. 7. Sports elevate school brands. 8. Pay motivates performance. 9. Scholarships reduce poverty.

There are many reasons why student athletes should be paid, but there are also valid reasons why student athletes should not be paid in certain circumstances. The lifting of NCAA restrictions on NIL agreements for college athletes has altered the landscape of major college sports but will likely have little or no impact on the majority of student athletes, who will continue to compete as true amateurs.

Reasons why student athletes should be paid

The argument raised most often in favor of allowing college athletes to receive compensation is that  colleges and universities profit  from the sports they play but do not share the proceeds with the athletes who are the ultimate source of that profit.

• In 2017 (the most recent year for which figures are available), the NCAA recorded $1.07 billion in revenue. The organization’s president earned $2.7 million in 2018, and nine other NCAA executives had salaries greater than $500,000 that year.
• Elite college coaches earn millions of dollars a year in salary, topped by University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban’s $9.3 million annual salary.
• Many of the athletes at leading football and basketball programs are from low-income families, and the majority will not become professional athletes.
• College athletes take great physical risks to play their sports and put their future earning potential at risk. In school they may be directed toward nonchallenging courses, which denies them the education their fellow students receive.

Reasons why student athletes should not be paid

Opponents to paying college athletes rebut these arguments by pointing to the primary role of colleges and universities: to provide students with a rewarding educational experience that prepares them for their professional careers. These are among the reasons they give for not paying student athletes.

• Scholarships are the fairest form of compensation for student athletes considering the financial strain that college athletic departments are under. Most schools in Division I, II, and III spend more money on athletics than they receive in revenue from the sports.
• College athletes who receive scholarships are presented with an opportunity to earn a valuable education that will increase their earning power throughout their career outside of sports. A Gallup survey of NCAA athletes found that  70% graduate in four years or fewer , compared to 65% of all undergraduate students.
• Paying college athletes will “ diminish the spirit of amateurism ” that distinguishes college sports from their professional counterparts. Limiting compensation for playing a sport to the cost of attending school avoids creating a separate class of students who are profiting from their time in school.

According to Best Colleges, Salarship, and CollegeVine, reasons why paying college athletes is less than ideal include: 1. Money may harm students. 2. Pay diminishes love of the game. 3. Pay deemphasizes academic purpose. 4. Secondary sports struggle. 5. Rich schools monopolize talent. 6. The financial benefit is marginal. 7. Setting salaries can be messy. 8. Academic requirements are substandard. 9. Other program budgets are reduced.

How do college athlete endorsements work?

Soon after the Supreme Court released its decision in NCAA v. Alston, the NCAA issued  guidelines for schools  that allow college athletes to make money from product endorsements, social media accounts, autographs, and other uses of their name, image, or likeness. This counters the NCAA’s longstanding opposition to student athletes profiting from endorsements. At present, implementation of the guidelines varies from school to school and state to state, which means athletes at some institutions may benefit more from NIL agreements than those attending other schools.

Several  NIL consultancy firms  are actively soliciting endorsements from college athletes in the aftermath of the rule change.

• Highly touted 19-year-old basketball recruit Hercy Miller, who joined the Tennessee State University basketball team in 2021, signed a $2 million endorsement deal with Web Apps America.
• University of Michigan quarterback Cade McNamara has entered into an endorsement deal with cryptocurrency company More Management that will  pay him in cryptocurrency .
• Twin sisters Haley and Hanna Cavinder of the Fresno State University basketball team have  marketing agreements  to promote Boost Mobile and Six Star Pro Nutrition to the 3.3 million followers of their TikTok account.
• Gable Steveson, a wrestler for the University of Minnesota, entered into an endorsement deal with the delivery service Gopuff; Steveson has 245,000 followers on Instagram and 30,000 on Twitter.

Despite the rush of high-profile college athletes signing endorsement deals, some educators and analysts express concern about the  impact of the endorsements  on schools, athletes, and college sports.

• Schools with more favorable endorsement rules may entice student athletes away from the schools they are currently attending.
• Likewise, states that have enacted endorsement laws that provide more earning potential for college athletes may see more top recruits choosing to attend schools in those states.
• The time college athletes spend meeting the requirements of their endorsement contracts could detract from study and practice time. This can have an adverse effect on their education and athletic careers — if they are unable to maintain grade requirements, for example, they may be disqualified from playing.
• If a college athlete’s performance in the sport declines, they may be less likely to attract and retain endorsement deals. While the NCAA has banned NIL agreements based on the athlete meeting specific performance criteria, the group acknowledges that a student’s athletic performance  may enhance their NIL value .
• Because of complicated contracts and tax laws, student athletes will have to rely on agents, advisers, and managers, which may leave them vulnerable to exploitation.

From the onset of intercollegiate sports, students have benefited from their participation by learning dedication to their sport, building relationships, and being part of a team. Sports allow students to acquire many important values, such as fair competition and physical and mental health. Education should remain at the forefront of all aspects of college, including sports, whether or not collegiate athletes are paid.

Infographic Source

Best Colleges, “Should College Athletes Be Paid?”

College Strategic, “Why College Athletes Should Be Paid”

CollegeVine, “Should College Athletes Be Paid? Pros and Cons”

Fansided, “64 Reasons College Athletes Need to Be Paid”

Future of Working, “17 Advantages and Disadvantages of Paying College Athletes”

NCAA, “Scholarships”

Next College Student Athlete, “What Are the Different Types of Offers I Could Get?”

Salarship, “Should College Athletes Be Paid: Pros and Cons”

Bring us your ambition and we’ll guide you along a personalized path to a quality education that’s designed to change your life.

Take Your Next Brave Step

Receive information about the benefits of our programs, the courses you'll take, and what you need to apply.

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Paying College Athletes — Should College Athletes Be Paid for Playing: Examining the Debate

Should College Athletes Be Paid for Playing: Examining The Debate

• Categories: Athletes Paying College Athletes

About this sample

Words: 711 |

Published: Sep 5, 2023

Words: 711 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Recognition of athletes' contributions, preserving the amateur spirit, exploitation and financial equity, maintaining the focus on education, conclusion: a complex issue.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 772 words

1 pages / 436 words

3 pages / 1316 words

3 pages / 1325 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Paying College Athletes

Should college athletes be paid? This essay argues that student athletes at universities around the country should not only obtain a percentage of income made off their athletic performance but also pursue business deals and [...]

The question of whether coaches and players should receive equal compensation in the realm of professional sports is a topic that has sparked intense debate. The Should Coaches and Players Make the Same Amount of Money Essay [...]

In the past five to ten years, there has been a controversial question going around: should students who play a sport get paid as a reward of being a College Athlete? The answer is no. Student athletes should not get paid [...]

The discussion whether the college athletes should be paid has been re-hashed several times. There are those who advocates in favor and many against the idea of paying athlete who plays sports for their colleges. Many reasons [...]

In our society today many people believe that student athletes have it easier than the average everyday student. They have these ideals about student athletes because they think that every athlete is on scholarship and has their [...]

On common on average only 1/3 of college athletes are given a scholarship and a majority are half as much as a full scholarships as stated by the National Collegiate Athletic Association. From that 1/3 about two percent make it [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Why Should College Athletes Be Paid, Essay Sample

One of the most pressing issues in college sports is the debate over whether or not college athletes should be paid. This topic has gained significant attention in recent years, with many arguing that it is only fair for college athletes to receive compensation for their hard work, dedication, and revenue-generating contributions. This free essay sample from Edusson will explore the various reasons why college athletes should be paid and will provide a comprehensive analysis of the issue.

Time Commitment and Workload

College athletes put in a tremendous amount of time and effort into their sport, often at the expense of their studies and personal life. As a student-athlete, I know firsthand the dedication it takes to balance academics and sports. We have rigorous practice schedules, intense training sessions, and games that require travel, leaving little time for anything else. Many athletes have to miss classes or sacrifice study time to attend competitions or travel with their teams. The workload of a college athlete can be overwhelming and can negatively impact their academic performance and mental health. Some may argue that athletes receive scholarships and other benefits, but these do not fully compensate for the amount of time and effort they put into their sport. Paying college athletes would help to alleviate some of the financial burden that many student-athletes face, while also compensating them for their time and workload.

Financial Struggles

As a student, I believe that college athletes should be paid for their hard work and dedication to their sports. One of the main reasons for this is the financial struggles that many college athletes face. These athletes come from low-income families and often struggle to make ends meet while attending college. They are unable to work part-time jobs to earn extra income due to the rigorous demands of their sport. This creates a challenging situation where they are unable to support themselves or their families financially. Paying college athletes would provide much-needed financial support and alleviate some of their financial struggles. This would allow them to focus on their studies and athletics without the added stress of financial instability. It would also give them the opportunity to contribute financially to their families, which many of them are unable to do currently. In short, paying college athletes would help alleviate the financial burdens they face and provide a fair compensation for their hard work and dedication to their sport.

Health and Safety Risks

As college athletes compete at a high level, they put their bodies on the line and are exposed to various health and safety risks. These athletes often play through injuries, which can exacerbate the severity of the injury, resulting in long-term physical damage. Therefore, it’s essential to consider the health and safety risks associated with college sports. Paying college athletes would acknowledge the risks that they take and provide a safety net if they get hurt. Furthermore, college athletes who are injured may not have access to the same level of healthcare as professional athletes. Paying them would help ensure they have the proper medical care and resources to recover from injuries. Moreover, paying college athletes could also incentivize schools to prioritize athlete safety and ensure that their health is a top priority. Overall, providing financial compensation to college athletes for the risks they take and the injuries they sustain is not only fair but also necessary for their wellbeing.

Revenue Generation

One of the main arguments in favor of paying college athletes is that they deserve to be compensated for their role in generating revenue for their universities and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). When fans attend a college sports event or purchase team merchandise, they are supporting the team and the entire athletic program. The athletes who are responsible for the success of these programs, however, do not receive any monetary compensation for their efforts. It is unfair that the NCAA and universities benefit from the work of college athletes without providing them with fair compensation. It is also worth noting that college sports have become a commercial enterprise, with the NCAA and universities treating them as such. Many top college sports programs generate millions of dollars in revenue every year, and the athletes who contribute to this success are essential to the financial health of their respective programs. However, athletes often struggle to make ends meet due to the demands of their sport, and they don’t have the time or resources to work part-time jobs to earn extra income.

Fairness and Equity

As college athletes put in countless hours of hard work and dedication to their respective sports, it’s only fair to compensate them for their efforts. However, one aspect that often goes unnoticed is the lack of rights and privileges that college athletes are subjected to, especially when it comes to earning money from their name, image, and likeness.

It is unfortunate that college athletes are the only ones on campus who are not allowed to monetize their skills and talents. This is in stark contrast to everyone else on campus, including musicians, artists, and actors, who can earn money from their talents while attending college. This discrepancy can cause a sense of injustice among college athletes who are forced to watch others monetize their talents while they are restricted from doing so.

In recent years, the issue of fairness and equity has gained considerable attention, and rightfully so. Paying college athletes would go a long way in promoting fairness and equity among all students. It would ensure that athletes have the same rights and opportunities as other students, allowing them to monetize their skills and talents just like everyone else. Additionally, paying college athletes would help eliminate the economic disparities that exist on campuses, especially among low-income athletes who may not have the financial support they need to sustain themselves.

Furthermore, paying college athletes would promote gender equality. Female athletes have historically been paid less than male athletes, even at the professional level. This inequality also extends to college sports, where female athletes often receive less funding and attention than their male counterparts. By paying college athletes, regardless of gender, colleges and universities would help bridge this gap and promote equality among all athletes.

In this table, we will outline some of the main reasons why college athletes should be paid.

Related posts:

• College Research Paper Example
• Freedom of Speech Argumentative Essay
• Exploring My Motivations for Pursuing a Supervisory Role
• The Importance of Women’s Choice: Exploring the Reasons Why Abortion Should Be Legal Essay

Improve your writing with our guides

Youth Culture Essay Prompt and Discussion

Reasons Why Minimum Wage Should Be Raised Essay: Benefits for Workers, Society, and The Economy

Why Marijuana Should Not Be Legal: Potential Risks and Drawbacks

Get 15% off your first order with edusson.

Connect with a professional writer within minutes by placing your first order. No matter the subject, difficulty, academic level or document type, our writers have the skills to complete it.

100% privacy. No spam ever.

Why College Athletes Should Be Paid

There is a heated debate occurring in the past decade about the advantages and disadvantages of paying college students whose outstanding athletic performance could potentially earn them money and popularity. There is a manual produced by the National Collegiate Athletic Association that covers many aspects of this issue, but there is no concrete verdict on the subject. Blinder (2020) states that there is an article in the manual, “which covers amateurism and athletic eligibility,” but it “is under the greatest scrutiny by elected officials across the country.” This essay covers the position that college athletes should be allowed to earn profits from their achievements while they are in college for the following reasons: the professional athlete is a valid job, and the college should prepare its students for it as much as for any other type of profession, most college students agree on the fact that athletes should be paid, and this type of payments would mean that students will have a source of revenue that can sustain their college education.

First, the current rules explicitly ban college athletes from benefiting from advertisements, product promotions, and acquiring sponsorships. The purpose of this rule is to prevent the minor leagues’ system from becoming a target for business exploitation (Novak, 2019). Moreover, students who actively pursue this career during their education spend “40 to 50 hours per week on those duties,” and it damages their studying process (Novak, 2019). However, it is essential to understand that this type of dedication should be encouraged instead of shunned. Students who are willing to put this much time into sports are aiming to become professional players. Minor leagues have fans all across the country, yet they do not gain the attention of mass media due to this ban, which puts college athletes at a disadvantage.

Second, many students see this rule being removed as a positive change. According to the surveys, 53% of college students are in favor of allowing athletes to benefit from their work, especially if it is profitable for the college (Hess, 2019). The author states that “among athletes, support for such a policy is significantly higher, with 40% of athletes polled strongly in favor and 31% in favor” (Hess, 2019). The overwhelming majority of students think that college athletes should receive payments when their image is used to promote a product or a service (Hess, 2019). This survey clearly shows that the current policy works against college students and prevents many dedicated players from reaching their full potential. Moreover, it reveals that people find it unjust for organizations to benefit from college athletes due to N.C.A.A. rulings, and it is ethical to remove these bans.

Finally, supporters of this change express their concerns about the disparity the current N.C.A.A. manual brings. It is also worth mentioning that many students have expressed their discontent about the college and other employees involved in minor leagues, such as coaches, gaining profits from this type of sport. Athletes who serve as a direct source of this income do not receive any of it. Novak (2019) concludes that “college football is thus an industry that survives on hope as opposed to any actual give-and-take between employee and employer.” Students who strive to become professional athletes in the future and put a significant amount of effort into this pursue should be placed on the payroll, especially if their careers have already begun to bring revenue for other involved parties. It is only logical to provide them with an additional means of income. This extracurricular activity hinders their opportunity to work, which could potentially cost these students their higher education if they are left with a choice between work and study.

In conclusion, college athletes should be allowed to earn profits from their achievements while they are in college for the following reasons: the professional athlete is a valid job, and the college should prepare its students for it as much as for any other type of profession. Another important reason is that most college students agree on the fact that athletes should be paid, and this type of payment would mean that students will have a source of revenue that can sustain their college education. While this type of activity is mostly extracurricular, colleges, coaches, and administrators who participate in minor leagues benefit from it, yet the direct participants — college athletes — do not. To remove this disparity, it is crucial to make changes in Article 12 of the N.C.A.A.’s Division I manual, which prohibits college students from being paid for their work. Several states, including California and Florida, have already taken measures that should positively impact college athletes, and their initiative serves as an example for other politicians that changing these policies must be prioritized. Students who show extraordinary athletic skills and put significant efforts into developing them should be encouraged to continue their pursuit by the college and the state. However, their athletic activities should not impact the overall grades in other subjects.

Blinder, A. (2020). Should college athletes profit from their fame? Here’s where the debate stands . The New York Times. Web.

Hess, A. (2019). Majority of college students say student-athletes should be paid, survey finds . The Consumer News and Business Channel. Web.

Novak, J. (2019). The real reason college football players don’t get paid . The Consumer News and Business Channel. Web.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, March 4). Why College Athletes Should Be Paid. https://studycorgi.com/why-college-athletes-should-be-paid/

"Why College Athletes Should Be Paid." StudyCorgi , 4 Mar. 2022, studycorgi.com/why-college-athletes-should-be-paid/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'Why College Athletes Should Be Paid'. 4 March.

1. StudyCorgi . "Why College Athletes Should Be Paid." March 4, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/why-college-athletes-should-be-paid/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Why College Athletes Should Be Paid." March 4, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/why-college-athletes-should-be-paid/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "Why College Athletes Should Be Paid." March 4, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/why-college-athletes-should-be-paid/.

This paper, “Why College Athletes Should Be Paid”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: December 17, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

16 Reasons College Athletes should be Paid (And 5 Against)

College athletes should be paid because they bring a substantial amount of money into their colleges, boost admission rates, put in full-time hours, and do not have the time to get a full-time job on top of their sport.

And yet, ridiculously, in many sports, it’s illegal to pay college athletes because it’s considered amateur sports.

These are the overarching reasons for which student athletes should be paid. However, there are several more that are justified below. 

Reasons Why College Athletes Should be Paid

1. student athletes bring in money.

College sports bring in tremendous amounts of money. Football, basketball, and baseball, in particular, generate billions of dollars a year for colleges in ticket sales, merchandise sales, and advertisements. 

Considering the massive revenue generated for colleges because of the student athletes, it only makes sense to pay them for their time, commitment, and energy.

As the system currently operates, it may be argued that college athletes are being exploited. college athletics is the main avenue into professional sports. Thus, the athletes need to go through college athletics even if the pay is low or non-existent. As a result, they feel they have little choice but to put in free labor for the colleges.

Read Also: 42 Colleges with Bear Mascots

2. No time for a part-time job

Not all college athletes have the bank of mom and dad to back them up. Many college athletes are admitted into colleges on scholarships and have little extra money to support themselves.

Living costs such as rent, food, and textbooks add up so many students find part-time employment to cover these costs. 

For college athletes, a part-time job really isn’t an option. College athletics take up a significant amount of time and are extremely physically and mentally demanding on top of college classes.

Many athletes therefore struggle to make ends meet even though they work day in and day out. 

3. Transparency about revenues generated

College sports teams have budgets so there is some degree of knowledge as to where money is coming from and how much of it there is. However, the details are extremely murky, and athletes are often kept in the dark. 

As a result, there is no guarantee that the sports teams will see the money they have brought in re-invested in their sport.

In other word, the athletes are bringing money into the colleges that is being redirect – often to inappropriate expenditures.

In fact, there have been several scandals now whereby certain college shareholders have used sports-generated funds inappropriately or even for personal gain. 

4. Brings better athletes (higher incentive)

College sports are already incredibly competitive but add the element of payment into the mix, and the bar will raise even higher.

Many star athletes choose not to pursue their sport in college for the simple reason that it isn’t paid.

Payment would raise the incentive so the caliber would be even higher than it currently stands.

In fact, if the college athletics system changed, it may increase participation in sports overall meaning the pool of possible stars will grow.

5. Renowned sports teams increase college admissions 

College sports do not just bring in revenue. They also attract students, which is another reason the athletes are valuable labor for the college.

There have been many instances of an average college (academically speaking) cultivating a champion sports team and therefore college applications skyrocket.

Further, once a college has a more competitive applicant pool and a renowned reputation, it can raise tuition fees. Thus, college sports can generate money for the school both directly and even indirectly. 

6. Athletics are expensive

Playing a sport or doing an athletic activity at a college level usually means the athlete has dedicated a significant portion of their life and personal money to that skill.

In other words, you have to be very good to pursue a sport in college which means you have put in the work to get that good. 

Athletics can be expensive and for a student to have practiced to the degree required to make it into college means that they have likely invested a fair amount of money over time.

Students should be paid if they are playing full-time in college as they have invested the resources to be there and should reap the rewards of that investment.

7. College athletes put in the same hours as a full-time job 

Considering the hours of practice, games, travel, and physical and mental maintenance, the time commitment can be equal to that of a full-time job. 

If someone is putting in the same hours as a full-time job which means they cannot get a job on top of their sport (as explained in point #2) then surely they should be paid for their time commitment.  

8. Players bring in merch money

Another point about revenue generation is that merchandisers capitalize not only on teams but on specific players. For instance, if the top college football quarterback wears the number 14 then merchandisers will intentionally produce more merch with this number. 

Thus, particular players are generating huge profits and often receive nothing monetary in return. 

And it’s big money – NCAA merchandise deals are estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars .

There are even stories about college athletes freelancing on the side by simply offering to go and do talks or meet-ups with fans who are willing to pay the athletes for their time. But, they’re still often unable to profit from the jerseys that have their own names on them!

9. College athletes should have a safety net in case they cannot go pro 

Not every college athlete goes on to play in the NBA or the NFL and makes millions of dollars a year.

Those that graduate and do not make it into the professional realm of their sport are left with little to restart their lives on, particularly if their grades have slipped because of their commitment to their sport.

Most college athletes spend their entire childhood and adolescence working on their sport and then graduate college with few other skills. If college athletes were paid, then at least they would have a nest egg to live on while they figure out their next steps. 

10. College coaches are paid handsomely 

If you consider the situation closely, it seems strange that college sports teams are populated by students who are unpaid but are coached by professionals who are paid extremely well.

Without the athletes, there would be no team for the coach to coach so it seems unfair and frankly, confusing why one key stakeholder would be paid while the others wouldn’t.

For the sake of fairness, you would expect the revenues to be more evenly spread around all the people in the team.

11. The sport causes damage to their bodies

Sports like football cause serious damage to athletes’ bodies. Many can only play into their early 30s .

As a result, every year of their career is highly valuable and extremely important. While most white-collar jobs enable people to continue working in the profession into your mid-60s, these athletes are going to need to make a lot of their lifetime income in the span of about 10-20 years.

This makes the fact that they’re underpaid for several years of their careers even more unfair.

12. They are free media exposure for the schools

College athletics generates a lot of media exposure for schools. In fact, if it weren’t for college basketball and football, a lot of schools would never make it onto the television.

And yet, thanks to college athletics, schools have excellent media exposure that often presents them at their best: stadiums of fans wearing the college’s colors, cheering on their school.

This media exposure makes the colleges household names and inspires many young people to want to go to those colleges, even from a very young age.

13. It’s often an issue of racial justice

A significant number of college footballers and basketballers are young Black Americans. By contrast, the vast majority of the coaches are white.

The visuals of a team of young black athletes being underpaid and unpaid for their labor isn’t great for the colleges’ attempts at achieving racial justice. This is even more stark when we see how much the white coaches are paid. The coaches, after all, aren’t putting their bodies on the line.

14. They are expected to do extracurricular tasks

College athletes do more than training and playing. They often have to turn up for media appearances and college events throughout the year.

This makes the fact that they’re unpaid even more egregious. The hours they put into extracurricular and co-curricular activities should be paid – just like a job. For example, if an employee is expected to turn up to an event, they would rightly expect payment for their time.

15. They generate school spirit

Sports is perhaps the number one way schools generate spirit and a sense of community. The college and its supporters come together to cheer on their team.

This school spirit may be considered an intangible benefit to the school, but it has many flow-on benefits. It enhances the college’s image, motivates students, and increases the students’ satisfaction with their college experience.

A college with a buzz and a positive school spirit can lead to positive word-of-mouth reviews and attract future students.

16. They generate corporate sponsorships

Without college athletes, corporate sponsorships for colleges will never happen. Here is just another way in which they generate money for colleges without compensation.

Corporations sponsor teams that are successful and that have a great image. The sponsorship allows the corporation to generate positive attitudes toward their brand by association with the athletes.

If only a bit of the corporate sponsorship went toward paying the athletes, who often appear in the ads or next to the brand names on t-shirts and posters, then the athletes could have a much better standard of living.

Are there Arguments Against Paying College Athletes?

Some key arguments against paying college athletes are:

• They get scholarships: Most college athletes get a full ride scholarship, which is highly valuable and a form of payment for their labor. Nevertheless, they generally don’t get any monetary benefits that they can put in the bank for their futures.
• They don’t have to do it if they don’t want: If the athletes didn’t see a net benefit out of competing in college athletics, they wouldn’t do it. No one is forcing them into it! (Of course, the fact that it’s just about the only path to a career as an elite athlete makes it appear to be some degree of coercion).
• They get great training: The athletes get access to excellent coaches that they wouldn’t have access to otherwise. These coaches are world-class and expensive for the schools to hire. This is a form of non-monetary payment.
• It’s their chance to get seen: The athletes also get a benefit in the form of visibility to scouts. They get their name out there, get watched performing their sport, and get an opportunity to eventually get a contract that will be extremely lucrative. This is another great non-monetary benefit that the college is providing for the athletes.
• They will be paid handsomely afterward: If the athletes get a contract, it would likely be a million-dollar-plus contract that will make up for the lack of pay during their early years at college.

College athletes work extremely hard and arguably, are not far behind their professional counterparts. Furthermore, they bring in a great deal of money and goodwill to the colleges they serve. At the end of the day, they’re providing labor to the colleges. So, it makes little sense that they are unpaid.

Related debate topics

• Reasons school should start later
• Reasons should start earlier
• Reasons school is important

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ What is Educational Psychology?
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ What is IQ? (Intelligence Quotient)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 50 Durable Goods Examples

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

The Case for Paying College Athletes

The case against paying college athletes, the era of name, image, and likeness (nil) profiting, why should college athletes be paid, is it illegal for college athletes to get paid, what percentage of americans support paying college athletes, the bottom line, should college athletes be paid.

The Case For and Against

Should college athletes be able to make money from their sport? When the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) was founded in 1906, the organization’s answer was a firm “no,” as it sought to “ensure amateurism in college sports.”

Despite the NCAA’s official stance, the question has long been debated among college athletes, coaches, sports fans, and the American public. The case for financial compensation saw major developments in June 2021, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA cannot limit colleges from offering student-athletes “education-related benefits.”

In response, the NCAA issued an interim policy stating that its student-athletes were permitted to profit off their name, image, and likeness (NIL) , but not to earn a salary. This policy will remain in place until a more “permanent solution” can be found in conjunction with Congress.

Meanwhile, the landscape continues to shift, with new cases, decisions, and state legislation being brought forward. College athletes are currently permitted to receive “cost of attendance” stipends (up to approximately $6,000), unlimited education-related benefits, and awards. A 2023 survey found that 67% of U.S. adults favor paying college athletes with direct compensation.

Key Takeaways

• Despite the NCAA reporting nearly $1.3 billion in revenue in 2023, student-athletes are restricted to limited means of compensation.
• Although college sports regularly generate valuable publicity and billions of dollars in revenue for schools, even the highest-grossing college athletes tend to see only a small fraction of this.
• One argument for paying college athletes is the significant time commitment that their sport requires, which can impact their ability to earn income and divert time and energy away from academic work.
• Student-athletes may face limited prospects after college for a variety of reasons, including a high risk of injury, fierce competition to enter professional leagues, and lower-than-average graduation rates.
• The developing conversation around paying college athletes must take into account the practical challenges of determining and administering compensation, as well as the potential impacts on players and schools.

There are numerous arguments in support of paying college athletes, many of which focus on ameliorating the athletes’ potential risks and negative impacts. Here are some of the typical arguments in favor of more compensation.

Financial Disparity

College sports generate billions of dollars in revenue for networks, sponsors, and institutions (namely schools and the NCAA). There is considerable money to be made from advertising and publicity, historically, most of which has not benefited those whose names, images, and likenesses are featured within it.

Of the 2019 NCAA Division I revenues ($15.8 billion in total), only 18.2% was returned to athletes through scholarships, medical treatment, and insurance. Additionally, any other money that goes back to college athletes is not distributed equally. An analysis of players by the National Bureau of Economic Research found major disparities between sports and players.

Nearly 50% of men’s football and basketball teams, the two highest revenue-generating college sports, are made up of Black players. However, these sports subsidize a range of other sports (such as men’s golf and baseball, and women’s basketball, soccer, and tennis) where only 11% of players are Black and which also tend to feature players from higher-income neighborhoods. In the end, financial redistribution between sports effectively funnels resources away from students who are more likely to be Black and come from lower-income neighborhoods toward those who are more likely to be White and come from higher-income neighborhoods.

Exposure and Marketing Value

Colleges’ finances can benefit both directly and indirectly from their athletic programs. The “Flutie Effect,” named after Boston College quarterback Doug Flutie, is an observed phenomenon whereby college applications and enrollments seem to increase after an unexpected upset victory or national football championship win by that college’s team. Researchers have also suggested that colleges that spend more on athletics may attract greater allocations of state funding and boost private donations to institutions.

Meanwhile, the marketing of college athletics is valued in the millions to billions of dollars. In 2023, the NCAA generated nearly $1.3 billion in revenue, $945.1 million of which came from media rights fees. In 2022, earnings from March Madness represented nearly 90% of the NCAA’s total revenue. Through this, athletes give schools major exposure and allow them to rack up huge revenues, which argues for making sure the players benefit, too.

Opportunity Cost, Financial Needs, and Risk of Injury

Because participation in college athletics represents a considerable commitment of time and energy, it necessarily takes away from academic and other pursuits, such as part-time employment. In addition to putting extra financial pressure on student-athletes, this can impact athletes’ studies and career outlook after graduation, particularly for those who can’t continue playing after college, whether due to injury or the immense competition to be accepted into a professional league.

Earning an income from sports and their significant time investment could be a way to diminish the opportunity cost of participating in them. This is particularly true in case of an injury that can have a long-term effect on an athlete’s future earning potential.

Arguments against paying college athletes tend to focus on the challenges and implications of a paid-athlete system. Here are some of the most common objections to paying college athletes.

Existing Scholarships

Opponents of a paid-athlete system tend to point to the fact that some college athletes already receive scholarships , some of which cover the cost of their tuition and other academic expenses in full. These are already intended to compensate athletes for their work and achievements.

Financial Implications for Schools

One of the main arguments against paying college athletes is the potential financial strain on colleges and universities. The majority of Division I college athletics departments’ expenditures actually surpass their revenues, with schools competing for players by hiring high-profile coaches, constructing state-of-the-art athletics facilities, and offering scholarships and awards.

With the degree of competition to attract talented athletes so high, some have pointed out that if college athletes were to be paid a salary on top of existing scholarships, it might unfairly burden those schools that recruit based on the offer of a scholarship.

‘Amateurism’ and the Challenges of a Paid-Athlete System

Historically, the NCAA has sought to promote and preserve a spirit of “amateurism” in college sports, on the basis that fans would be less interested in watching professional athletes compete in college sports, and that players would be less engaged in their academic studies and communities if they were compensated with anything other than scholarships.

The complexity of determining levels and administration of compensation across an already uneven playing field also poses a practical challenge. What would be the implications concerning Title IX legislation, for example, since there is already a disparity between male and female athletes and sports when it comes to funding, resources, opportunities, compensation, and viewership?

Another challenge is addressing the earnings potential of different sports (as many do not raise revenues comparable to high-profile sports like men’s football and basketball) or of individual athletes on a team. Salary disparities would almost certainly affect team morale and drive further competition between schools to bid for the best athletes.

In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA violated antitrust laws with its rules around compensation, holding that the NCAA’s current rules were “more restrictive than necessary” and that the NCAA could no longer “limit education-related compensation or benefits” for Division I football and basketball players.

In response, the NCAA released an interim policy allowing college athletes to benefit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL) , essentially providing the opportunity for players to profit off their personal brand through social media and endorsement deals. States then introduced their own rules around NIL, as did individual schools, whose coaches or compliance departments maintain oversight of NIL deals and the right to object to them in case of conflict with existing agreements.

Other court cases against the NCAA have resulted in legislative changes that now allow students to receive “cost of attendance” stipends up to a maximum of around $6,000 as well as unlimited education-related benefits and awards.

The future of NIL rules and student-athlete compensation remains to be seen. According to the NCAA, the intention is to “develop a national law that will help colleges and universities, student-athletes, and their families better navigate the name, image, and likeness landscape.” However, no timeline has been specified as of yet.

Common arguments in support of paying college athletes tend to focus on players’ financial needs, their high risk of injury, and the opportunity cost they face (especially in terms of academic achievement, part-time work, and long-term financial and career outlook). Proponents of paying college athletes also point to the extreme disparity between the billion-dollar revenues of schools and the NCAA and current player compensation.

Although the NCAA once barred student-athletes from earning money from their sport, legislation around compensating college athletes is changing. In 2021, the NCAA released an interim policy permitting college athletes to profit off their name, image, and likeness (NIL) through social media and endorsement and sponsorship deals. However, current regulations and laws vary by state.

In 2023, a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults found that 67% of respondents were in favor of paying college athletes with direct compensation. Sixty-four percent said they supported athletes’ rights to obtain employee status, and 59% supported their right to collectively bargain as a labor union .

Although the NCAA is under growing pressure to share its billion-dollar revenues with the athletes it profits from, debate remains around whether, how, and how much college athletes should be paid. Future policy and legislation will need to take into account the financial impact on schools and athletes , the value of exposure and marketing, pay equity and employment rights, pay administration, and the nature of the relationship between college athletes and the institutions they represent.

NCAA. “ History .”

Marquette Sports Law Review. “ Weakening Its Own Defense? The NCAA’s Version of Amateurism ,” Page 260 (Page 5 of PDF).

U.S. Supreme Court. “ National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston et al. ”

NCAA. “ NCAA Adopts Interim Name, Image and Likeness Policy .”

PBS NewsHour. “ Analysis: Who Is Winning in the High-Revenue World of College Sports? ”

Sportico. “ 67% of Americans Favor Paying College Athletes: Sportico/Harris Poll .”

Sportico. “ NCAA Took in Record Revenue in 2023 on Investment Jump .”

National Bureau of Economic Research. “ Revenue Redistribution in Big-Time College Sports .”

Appalachian State University, Walker College of Business. “ The Flutie Effect: The Influence of College Football Upsets and National Championships on the Quantity and Quality of Students at a University .”

Grand Canyon University. “ Should College Athletes Be Paid? ”

Flagler College Gargoyle. “ Facing Inequality On and Off the Court: The Disparities Between Male and Female Athletes .”

U.S. Department of Education. “ Title IX and Sex Discrimination .”

Congressional Research Service Reports. “ National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston and the Debate Over Student Athlete Compensation .”

NCSA College Recruiting. “ NCAA Name, Image, Likeness Rule .”

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

Why should College Athletes be Paid

This essay about why college athletes should be paid argues for compensation based on the significant economic benefits they bring to their institutions and the intense commitment required of them. It highlights the massive revenues generated from college sports, emphasizing that athletes are at the center of this financial ecosystem yet receive none of the profits. The piece also tackles the argument that scholarships suffice as compensation, pointing out the professional-level demands placed on student-athletes that limit their ability to work or enjoy typical college experiences. Furthermore, it addresses recent changes allowing athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL), but stresses this doesn’t cover direct compensation for their sports participation. The essay counters concerns about damaging the purity of amateur sports and financial imbalance, suggesting that structured compensation systems can be developed. Ultimately, it champions paying college athletes as a matter of fairness and equity, reflecting the commercialized reality of modern college sports.

How it works

For ages, the heated debate on whether college athletes should pocket some cash for their sweat and talent has raged on. It’s a conversation that’s echoed in dorm rooms, lit up sports forums, and even found its way to the higher echelons of justice. Strip it down to its basics, and you’ve got a classic tug-of-war between the love of the game and the hard, cold reality of economics. Here’s why tipping the scales in favor of paying these athletes isn’t just good sense—it’s downright necessary.

Let’s lay it out straight: college sports isn’t a quaint little side hustle. It’s a juggernaut industry that rakes in cash by the boatloads, especially when you look at the big guns like football and basketball. These programs aren’t just playing for trophies; they’re playing in a market where broadcasting rights, merch, and tickets translate to big bucks. Yet, while the cash flow turns universities into economic powerhouses, the athletes at the heart of this frenzy see none of it. Talk about a raw deal.

These student-athletes are doing way more than just juggling coursework and practice. They’re putting in hours that would make a pro athlete nod in respect, all while being expected to keep up academically and somehow manage to not be broke. The usual argument that scholarships are pay enough doesn’t cut it when you consider the personal and physical toll these athletes endure. It’s like saying, “Thanks for all the revenue and the national attention, here’s your textbook.” Hardly seems fair, right?

And yes, the winds of change are blowing with the NCAA cracking open the door for athletes to earn from their name, image, and likeness (NIL). It’s a step in the right direction but doesn’t quite tackle the elephant in the room: getting paid for the game itself. Creating a system where athletes get a slice of the revenue pie is about acknowledging their role in this multi-million dollar dance.

Now, there’s the chorus of naysayers warning that paying athletes will tarnish the purity of college sports or upset the financial apple cart among schools. But let’s be real—the sheen of amateurism got smudged the minute big money entered the chat. And as for financial fairness, well, professional leagues have been balancing those books with salary caps and shared revenues for years. It’s about time college sports figured out its version.

In essence, making sure college athletes get paid is about leveling the playing field and recognizing the blood, sweat, and tears they pour into their sports. It’s about transforming an industry that profits from their talents into one that also respects their contribution. This isn’t just about sports; it’s about fairness, equity, and maybe, just maybe, bringing a bit more honesty to the game.

Cite this page

Why Should College Athletes Be Paid. (2024, Mar 12). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/why-should-college-athletes-be-paid/

"Why Should College Athletes Be Paid." PapersOwl.com , 12 Mar 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/why-should-college-athletes-be-paid/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Why Should College Athletes Be Paid . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/why-should-college-athletes-be-paid/ [Accessed: 7 May. 2024]

"Why Should College Athletes Be Paid." PapersOwl.com, Mar 12, 2024. Accessed May 7, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/why-should-college-athletes-be-paid/

"Why Should College Athletes Be Paid," PapersOwl.com , 12-Mar-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/why-should-college-athletes-be-paid/. [Accessed: 7-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Why Should College Athletes Be Paid . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/why-should-college-athletes-be-paid/ [Accessed: 7-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

The Aspen Institute

©2024 The Aspen Institute. All Rights Reserved

• 0 Comments Add Your Comment

The History Behind the Debate Over Paying NCAA Athletes

April 23, 2018  • Jon Solomon

The Aspen Institute Sports & Society Program held a conversation May 1 in Washington, DC titled “Future of College Sports: Reimagining Athlete Pay.” The discussion was livestreamed at as.pn/collegesportsfuture. The Aspen Institute discussion explored the implications if NCAA athletes could be paid by outside entities for use of their names, images, and likenesses, like any college student.

While speaking at the Aspen Institute in 2016, NCAA president Mark Emmert raised concerns that University of Texas swimmer Joseph Schooling had recently received a $740,000 bonus from Singapore for winning a gold medal at the 2016 Olympics. Schooling didn’t just win gold; he was Singapore’s first Olympic gold medalist and beat the great Michael Phelps.

This payment was perfectly permissible under NCAA rules, which since 2001 have allowed US Olympians to compete in college while pocketing tens of thousands of dollars (and sometimes six figures) from the United States Olympic Committee for winning gold, silver, or bronze. The NCAA added an exception in 2015 to also allow international athletes to receive bonuses.

Still, a college swimmer making nearly three-quarters of a million dollars concerned some NCAA members because, Emmert said, “that’s a little different than 15 grand for the silver medal for the US of A. … The members at that time hadn’t anticipated this phenomenon of like the Singaporean kid getting paid a very large amount.”

Never mind that NCAA rules allow two-sport athletes to be paid professionals in one sport while competing in a different college sport, such as Kyle Parker’s $1.4 million baseball signing bonus while serving as Clemson’s quarterback in 2010. Or that tennis players can receive up to $10,000 per year in prize money (and additional cash on a per-event basis) before or during college. Or that college football players can receive bowl gifts up to $550 in value, which can involve players selecting high-tech electronics from a gift suite or receiving a Visa gift card. Or that schools have student-assistance funds to help athletes financially, including paying five-figure insurance policies for elite athletes who want to protect their professional futures.

Emmert’s description of his membership’s concerns about the swimming bonus reflects the never-ending definition of NCAA amateurism. Amateurism is whatever the NCAA says amateurism is at any particular moment.

As US District Judge Claudia Wilken wrote in her 2014 ruling in the Ed O’Bannon v. NCAA antitrust lawsuit case against the NCAA over the commercialized use of players’ names, images and likenesses: “The association’s current rules demonstrate that, even today, the NCAA does not necessarily adhere to a single definition of amateurism.”

The challenges are adding up for the NCAA both in the courtroom and in the court of public opinion. Speaking at a 2017 meeting of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, Emmert released internal NCAA polling showing that among all Americans, 79 percent say major universities value money ahead of college athletes.

“I can’t think of anything 79 percent of Americans agree to,” Emmert said, “but they agree to that.”

Such is the state of college sports. How America’s college sports system got here – the only country in the world to attach a highly-commercialized, multibillion-dollar industry to higher education, thus resulting in ongoing legal challenges and public criticism – is a long story. Three key events help trace the journey.

1. Why NCAA athletes are called student-athletes

The term “student-athlete” is ingrained in the college sports vernacular. NCAA-organized press conferences involve a moderator seeking questions for any of the “student-athletes,” a term that historically comes to define the NCAA’s perceived moral authority and its justification for existence.

It’s a term rooted in legal calculations. Walter Byers, the NCAA’s first executive director, created “student-athlete” in the 1950s to help the NCAA fight against workmen’s compensation insurance claims for injured football players.

“The student-athlete was a term used to try to offset these tendencies for state agencies or other governmental departments to consider a grant-in-aid holder” to be an employee, Byers said in court testimony during the 1990s. Soon, the term “student-athlete” became embedded in all NCAA rules and interpretations.

“Student-athlete” first surfaced when the widow of Ray Dennison, who died from a head injury in 1955 while playing in Colorado for the Fort Lewis A&M Aggies, filed for workmen’s compensation death benefits. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with the defendant that Dennison’s widow was not eligible for benefits because the college was “not in the football business.”

“The term student-athlete was deliberately ambiguous,” Pulitzer Prize-winning author Taylor Branch wrote in The Atlantic in 2011. “College players were not students at play (which might understate their athletic obligations), nor were they just athletes in college (which might imply they were professionals). That they were high-performance athletes meant they could be forgiven for not meeting the academic standards of their peers; that they were students mean they did not have to be compensated, ever, for anything more than the cost of their studies. Student-athlete became the NCAA’s signature term, repeated constantly in and out of courtrooms.”

Athletes may be receiving degrees, but many examples show that pockets of athletes are not receiving a quality education.

The student-athlete defense helped the NCAA win – and avoid – numerous liability cases through the years. The most notable win was a lawsuit brought by former Texas Christian University (TCU) running back Kent Waldrep, who was paralyzed in a 1974 football game against the University of Alabama. TCU stopped paying his medical bills after nine months and the Waldrep family coped for years on charity.

Shortly after NCAA Division I schools began carrying catastrophic insurance for football players in 1991, Waldrep sued. He claimed he was an employee of TCU at the time of his injury and covered by workers compensation laws. Waldrep initially won $70 a week for life and medical expenses dating to the accident, but TCU’s insurance carrier appealed.

Finally, in 2000, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Waldrep was not an employee because he and TCU intended for him to participate in sports as a student. As part of its decision, the Texas Supreme Court wrote that a basic purpose of the NCAA was to make the student-athlete an integral part of the student body, and cited the definition of an amateur student-athlete from the NCAA bylaws: “one who engaged in athletics for the education, physical, mental, and social benefits he derives therefrom, and to whom athletics is an avocation.”

The power of the student-athlete label has played out in legal circles and in the public narrative. Today, the NCAA promotes that more than 460,000 student-athletes compete in 24 sports per year, and more than eight in 10 student-athletes will earn a bachelor’s degree. The value of a college degree is viewed very favorably by many Americans, especially as tuition costs continue to skyrocket that causes students to carry college-loan debt well into adulthood.

Yet the money keeps growing in college sports. The combined revenue for the five major conferences (SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, Pac-12) increased by 266 percent from 2005-15, according to the Knight Commission. In 2015, the 53 public schools from the five major conferences paid their football coaching staffs (530 individuals) a combined $405.5 million, compared to $179.8 million in scholarships to their football players (4,979 individuals).

In recent years, the NCAA changed some rules to allow new benefits for athletes. Schools can expand the value of athletic scholarships to include cash stipends of a couple thousand dollars to cover athletes’ full cost of attendance. The NCAA now lets schools provide unlimited meals to athletes. The Pac-12 in 2014 became the first conference to guarantee athletes who are injured in college competition will have medical expenses covered up to four years by the school; the other four major conferences recently agreed to a minimum two-year standard for medical expenses covered after college.

But the criticism for the NCAA hasn’t subsided. The NCAA’s academic mission has increasingly been called into question. Athletes may be receiving degrees, but many examples show that pockets of athletes are not receiving a quality education. Some of them essentially major in eligibility – that is, they take (and are sometimes directed to) easier majors/courses in order to stay on the field.

The most glaring example occurred when the University of North Carolina was found by outside parties to have organized fake classes that enabled dozens of athletes to gain and maintain their eligibility. In a ruling last year that caused considerable confusion and frustration among NCAA members, the NCAA did not penalize North Carolina. The NCAA said no association rules were broken because the fraudulent classes were not available exclusively to athletes; other students had access to the courses, too. An independent report commissioned by North Carolina found that of the 3,100 students who took the fake classes over 18 years, 47.4 percent were athletes.

The North Carolina scandal also has played out in state and federal court, where the NCAA argued that it “did not voluntarily assume a legal duty to ensure the academic integrity of courses offered by its member institutions.” The NCAA enforcement model “creates no legal duty to prevent NCAA members from violating NCAA rules,” the association wrote.

North Carolina avoided NCAA penalties by essentially arguing that the NCAA should stay out of irregularities in college courses. This caused many critics to say that the NCAA must decide whether it’s going to continue to be involved in other academic matters, such as:

• Approving or withholding initial NCAA eligibility for players based on their high school transcript and curriculum
• Progress toward degree requirements for college athletes to stay eligible
• Penalties against schools, including postseason bans, if individual teams don’t meet Academic Progress Rate benchmarks showing their players are progressing toward a degree

“Maybe we’ve just reached the point where if a university is going to cheat academically, the public needs to look to the university and university leadership and say, ‘Does winning mean that much to you?’” retired North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr, co-counsel in a lawsuit against the NCAA involving the North Carolina scandal, told CBSSports.com in 2016. “Instead, they turn to this outside organization with inconsistent standards and limited resources.”

If the NCAA ever removed itself entirely from academics and became solely an organizer of sporting events, that could pose a significant threat to the association’s current nonprofit model. The entire enterprise is designed around the notion that providing access to an education is sufficient compensation to players for their participation in a multibillion-dollar industry.

After all, the NCAA tells us, these players are student-athletes.

2. 1984 Supreme Court decision shifted the power to conferences

Perhaps more than anyone else, the late Supreme Court Justice Byron “Whizzer” White saw the challenges coming for the NCAA. White essentially predicted so much of this – the commercialization, the defections for TV cash, the NCAA’s struggles to protect amateurism – when he wrote the dissenting opinion in the landmark NCAA v. Oklahoma Board of Regents case that ended the NCAA’s monopoly over college football television contracts.

“By mitigating what appears to be a clear failure of the free market to serve the ends and goals of higher education,” White wrote in 1984, “the NCAA ensures the continued availability of a unique and valuable product, the very existence of which might well be threatened by unbridled competition in the economic sphere.”

The NCAA once controlled football television – who got the exposure on TV and how the money was distributed to schools. The University of Oklahoma and University of Georgia sued to change the power structure. An appellate court and the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision that the NCAA’s control over football TV contracts was illegal.

The Supreme Court handed down a 7-2 decision against the NCAA. The only justice joining White in dissension was William Rehnquist. White warned that the court was making a mistake by “subjugating the NCAA’s educational goals … to the purely competitive commercialism of [an] ‘every school for itself’ approach to television contract bargaining.”

After the decision, schools began merging into larger conferences and ended the once-common practice of independent status. Conferences soon held the power in football – and as football’s popularity grew in America, the sport became the financial engine for athletic departments. Conferences began to negotiate lucrative media rights deals, stage championship games and secure their own bowl games, and ultimately produce college football’s first national championship format.

Today, the conferences now stage the College Football Playoff, which is worth about $470 million annually. Many of them have their own television network. During fiscal year 2017, the SEC distributed on average $41 million to each of its 14 universities, according to USA Today. Ten years ago, the SEC average payout per school was $11 million. The Big Ten Conference is projected to exceed $50 million in its average payout.

There’s another legacy of the 1984 ruling: Buried within the NCAA’s landmark loss was a Supreme Court gift that kept on giving for 30 more years. In the middle of the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens dropped in limited language that states “athletes must not be paid”:

“… moreover, the NCAA seeks to market a particular brand of football – college football. The identification of this ‘product’ with an academic tradition differentiates college football from and makes it more popular than professional sports to which it might otherwise be comparable, such as, for example, minor league baseball. In order to preserve the character and quality of the ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class, and the like.”

There were just three sentences in a 19,000-word brief. The topic (player compensation) had nothing to do with the issue at hand (football TV contracts). No one testified about player compensation, and Stevens didn’t appear to give much rigorous thought to what he was writing.

Stevens didn’t define what “paid” means. Does that mean salaries from the school, endorsements from outside entities, or checks written as part of scholarship agreements?

Stevens didn’t explain what “required to attend class” means. Does that mean a part-time student or full-time student, or perhaps attend only one class? How would Stevens interpret “required to attend class” today when compared to how frequently NCAA athletes miss school to travel to play in games? In a 2015 survey, Division I men’s basketball players said they spent an average of 1.7 days a week away from campus and missed 2.2 classes. The Wall Street Journal found that eight top-25 men’s basketball teams in 2018 traveled an average of more than 42 days during the season.

Though NCAA v. Oklahoma Board of Regents wasn’t about compensation for college athletes, Stevens’ five words – “athletes must not be paid” – became a valuable source for many NCAA legal victories in future years. That changed when the O’Bannon case challenged the NCAA’s restrictions preventing football and men’s basketball players from being paid for the licensing use of their names, images, and likenesses (NILs).

Wilken, the judge in O’Bannon v. NCAA , concluded that while NCAA v. Oklahoma Board of Regents “gives the NCAA ‘ample latitude’ to adopt rules preserving ‘the revered tradition of amateurism in college sports’ … it does not stand for the sweeping proposition that student-athletes must be barred, both during their college years and forever thereafter, from receiving any monetary compensation for the commercial use of their names, images and likenesses.”

Andy Coats, the lawyer for Oklahoma and Georgia in the 1984 Supreme Court case, said it was only a matter of time before players sought a slice of the TV pie.

“They’re saying, ‘Look, we’re generating this money either by our play or the fact you take my image and sell it, and it’s not fair,’” Coats told CBSSports.com in 2014.

The money grew too big. The time had come for legal challenges on behalf of the players.

Tom McMillen, who oversees the athletic director association for the NCAA’s largest division, sums up a critical question this way: If schools could pay players, who would athletic directors predominantly pay – the players or the coaches? Surveys show ADs don’t currently support constraining coaches’ salaries, McMillen said.

“The system has allowed coaches’ compensation to explode so it’s a fair question,” McMillen said. “If that hadn’t happened, I think the pressure on paying athletes would be far less today. You can’t have a market place where one side wins and another side doesn’t win. You can’t expect one side to be constrained forever. I said that in my book in 1991. I think it holds even more true today.”

3. Impact of Ed O’Bannon v. NCAA

The next chapter of challenges against the NCAA is still being written. The results will be based in part on the O’Bannon ruling – the legal precedent set, how college athletes are more cognizant of the money around them, and the public’s opinion about amateurism and what it even means.

The O’Bannon case ended up with victories for both sides. The plaintiffs won a decision that certain NCAA amateurism rules violate federal antitrust law. The court determined that those rules constituted an anti-competitive conspiracy by the NCAA schools and conferences to deny men’s basketball and football players monetary value for their NILs. This potentially leaves the NCAA vulnerable for more antitrust challenges.

On the other hand, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Wilken’s remedy to the violations: Allow schools, if they so desire, to pay players up to $5,000 per year while they are in college with payment coming after they leave school. Rejecting the remedy was a win for the NCAA. Today, the NCAA clings to a new definition of amateurism through the O’Bannon appellate decision, which tied educational expenses to athlete compensation.

“The difference between offering student-athletes education-related compensation and offering them cash sums untethered to educational expenses is not minor; it is a quantum leap,” two Ninth Circuit judges wrote in 2015.

Legal threats continue against the NCAA. Two lawsuits that challenge the NCAA’s current compensation limits for athletes continue – including the Martin Jenkins case led by attorney Jeffrey Kessler, who brought free agency to the NFL – envision an NCAA in which conferences and/or schools would be free to make their own independent determinations about how to fairly compensate athletes.

The ongoing NCAA college basketball scandal showed that under-the-table payments to players by coaches, financial advisors, and shoe companies are common in the sport.

Wilken, the judge in O’Bannon, recently ordered the lawsuits to trial starting Dec. 3. She essentially left the NCAA with only two arguments to use at trial: The notion that fans are drawn to college football and basketball “in part due to their perception of amateurism,” and the idea that “paying student-athletes would detract from the integration of academics and athletics in the campus community.” The results of the trial, and inevitable appeals, could dramatically reshape the NCAA.

According to McMillen, 79 percent of athletic directors in the NCAA’s highest football subdivision support players making money off their name for non-athletic related activities, and 26 percent favor giving players the right for athletic-related pursuits. Emmert, the NCAA president, has said the Olympic model – athletes receiving sponsor money in exchange for use of their name, image and likeness – is deserving of serious consideration inside the context of college sports.

“I hate to say this, I think the plaintiff lawyers are slowing this down,” McMillen said. “If you didn’t have a court case now, I think college sports could have addressed this. Now, the lawyers will say they’ve made progress because of the court cases. It’s what comes first – the chicken or the egg? But when a court case’s fundamental principle is tethered to education, it’s a slippery slope no one will touch right now. I think the ADs are more sympathetic to (players making money off their NIL) provided some of their concerns are addressed. They don’t want it to be an abusive recruiting tool.”

The NCAA’s history has been to legally fight most attempts to increase benefits for athletes. The NCAA fought two court cases over expanding the value of the traditional athletic scholarship to include additional money that covers miscellaneous costs of attending college. Now, thousands of NCAA athletes who received traditional scholarships, rather than the new cost-of-attendance version, will be compensated for the difference. Last year, the NCAA and 11 major conferences settled for $208.7 million in the Shawne Alston lawsuit, which was impacted by the O’Bannon decision.

The ongoing NCAA college basketball scandal brought by federal prosecutors reflected, not surprisingly, that under-the-table payments to players by coaches, financial advisors and shoe companies are common in the sport. Three criminal cases are tied to the FBI investigation, which has resulted in 10 arrests, including charges against assistant basketball coaches at Auburn, Oklahoma State, Arizona and Southern California.

According to a Yahoo! Sports report in February, federal documents show an underground recruiting operation that could create NCAA rules issues for at least 20 Division I basketball programs – including Duke, North Carolina, Texas, Kentucky, Michigan State, Southern California, and Alabama – and more than 25 players. The amounts of impermissible benefits reported by Yahoo! Sports for one sports agency ranged from $70 for a lunch with a player’s parents to tens of thousands of dollars and loans to a former North Carolina State player.

“These allegations, if true, point to systematic failures that must be fixed and fixed now if we want college sports in America,” Emmert said in a statement in February 2018. “Simply put, people who engage in this kind of behavior have no place in college sports. They are an affront to all those who play by the rules.”

Yet the reality is value does exist for some players above their athletic scholarship. That was highlighted in the O’Bannon case. A vice president of videogame maker Electronic Arts Sports testified that his company wants to pay players for the right to use their NILs in popular NCAA videogames that have been discontinued. EA Sports previously used the likeness of players without their permission, resulting in a $60 million settlement with plaintiffs. The average payout was expected to be around $1,600, with some players receiving several thousand dollars depending on how frequently their likeness appeared in the videogame.

A slight majority of American adults (52 percent) still believe a full scholarship is adequate compensation for a college athlete, according to a 2017 nationwide poll by The Washington Post and the University of Massachusetts Lowell. The racial divide was noteworthy: 54 percent of black Americans support paying NCAA athletes based on revenue they generate, whereas only 31 percent of white Americans support the concept.

Gaining public traction is the idea of allowing players to make money if their NIL is sold through merchandise (66 percent of Americans are in favor). A racial gap exists here as well: 89 percent of blacks say athletes should be paid for use of their NIL, while 60 percent of whites are in favor.

Some proponents of paying players argue for a free market that would reallocate the money flowing to coaches, administrators and facility upgrades to the athletes. Others argue for Congress to provide a limited antitrust exemption for college athletic departments so they could impose caps on coach pay and other athletic spending in exchange for athletes to be guaranteed more benefits, including money through use of their NIL.

“My own personal view: There could be ways to do licensing with players and make sure the companies are legit,” McMillen said. “You could set up an independent, voluntary clearinghouse where the licensing staff would negotiate on behalf of all the student-athletes, much like they do in the pros. In taking this step to help elite student-athletes, like Olympic athletes can do today, it might help reduce the ever-growing pressure for universities to pay student-athletes, and that would undermine the whole college sports model.”

In 2014, Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick made the rare public case by an AD that college sports could manage group licensing for athletes to be paid immediately. He argued that the NCAA’s problems stem from years of rules that differentiate athletes from the general student body, such as not allowing players to make money off their own name.

“You could have a group-licensing approach and say, OK, this group licensee can do a deal with EA Sports for student-athlete image and likeness, and we’ll go to EA Sports and negotiate it for all of the student-athletes,” Swarbrick told CBSSports.com. “Here’s what it’s worth if you wear the jersey in the EA Sports video(game) and here’s what it’s worth if you don’t. You get a market read on it and you distribute it based on the way all group licenses work.”

Nothing in the NCAA’s history suggests it would proactively take such an approach. Allowing players to be paid by outside entities might require a court ruling, federal legislation and/or a player boycott. Big 12 Conference commissioner Bob Bowlsby predicted in 2015 that the day will come when players decide not to play in a major college sporting event.

The Olympics once passionately believed in the evolving definition of amateurism. Paid professional athletes were not allowed. During the 1980s, the move toward professionalism gradually gained full steam sport by sport over several years. The change was aided in part by the suspicion that athletes from some Eastern Bloc nations were already professionals anyway through full-time support and training by their governments.

The public hasn’t stopped watching the Olympics with professionals. Making money through endorsements while being good at a sport doesn’t seem to hurt interest in the Olympics, which once had the most stringent definition of amateurism. In 1960, athletes who simply had decided to turn pro were no longer amateurs under Olympic rules.

College sports is gradually changing amateurism definitions, too. Times change, as reflected by some NCAA members’ concerns in 2016 about allowing an Olympian to get paid $740,000 while still competing in college. Some money is OK, in the view of NCAA members, but where’s the limit?

If swimmers and gymnasts can be paid for winning at the Olympics, why not basketball and football players for other forms of outside compensation? If $740,000 is deemed too much for Schooling to accept from Singapore while swimming for the University of Texas, why would American swimmer Katie Ledecky making $115,000 from the Olympics be OK to swim at Stanford? And for that matter, since Ledecky made $115,000 from Olympic success, why did NCAA rules prevent her from making endorsement money and cause her to turn pro early?

Once a line has been crossed to pay athletes, what makes one amount acceptable and another unacceptable?

That’s NCAA amateurism – a floating definition that’s always evolving, consistently inconsistent, and forever under scrutiny.

Jon Solomon is editorial director of the Aspen Institute Sports & Society Program. He was an award-winning college sports reporter for 18 years, most recently at CBSSports.com.

Related Posts

April 17, 2023 Sports & Society Program

August 29, 2022 Tom Farrey

The best of the Institute, right in your inbox.

Sign up for our email newsletter

• Knowledge Base
• Popular Essay Topics

Should College Athletes Be Paid Essay

• Author StudySaurus
• Category Popular Essay Topics

Disclaimer: This paper has been submitted by a student. This is not a sample of the work written by professional academic writers.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of StudySaurus.

Persuasive Essay: Why Should college Athletes be Paid 

College athletes should get paid because they make money for their school, but get barely anything in return, they spend more time on the field than in classrooms, and lastly coaches earn millions a year and players who work hard are not rewarded.

One reason why college athletes should get paid is because they make revenue for their school but don’t get what they deserve in the end. In fact the NCAA makes around $10.8 billion dollars a year. We are talking about $11 billion dollars for three weekends on television per year! Even though they make money from their scholarship they don’t make any extra money for whatever needs they have, it is not fair to the athletes! Also the NCAA does not have a lot of TV time compared to others, but they make a ton of money for the time they have. Also I quote from Business Insider, “The fair market value for the average FBS football player is $137,357 per year, and the fair market value for the average men’s basketball player is $289,031 per year. Right now the average player earns just $23,204 in scholarship money.” This shows us that right now college athletes are not getting paid a sixth of what they should receive. Schools usually make around 2 million dollars a year and paying student athletes for the NCAA for a year depends on the size of the school or how many athletes they have.

Why College Athletes Should be Paid

Another reason why college athletes should get paid is because they spend more time on the field than in classrooms. This means that they put in so much time for their sport and they are so dedicated to it they barely have time for anything else. A quote from Gale SR says to us that athletes work hard and long and that they should get paid because being a college athletes is like having a full time job. “While the NCAA contends that college football players are not employees in a legal sense, a study found that the average college football player committed 43.3 hours per week to train, practice, and play. Considering the standard workweek is 40 hours, those who support the pay-for-play model argue that playing college football is similar to holding a full-time job, one that generates large revenues for the parent company yet offers virtually no pay.” This really shows us why college athletes should get paid. As you can see, college sports are no joke and that sense they take them as serious as can be, like a job they should get paid.

Lastly college athletes should get paid because coaches earn millions a year and players who work hard are not rewarded. College Express believes that student-athletes are the ones working hard out on the court and field. That coaches might have a big effect on a team, but it is up to the athletes to get it done. That coaches receive bonuses for breaking records, reaching the off-season, and winning the big games, but the athletes receive none of it even though they are the ones working. A quote from Gale says to us that they are making unjust double standards for the team. The quote is, “Forbes also reported that in 2013 that the average annual salary of a head coach in a top college football program was $2.05 million, with some head coaches commanding several times that amount. This is said to create an unjust double standard that acknowledges the value a head coach brings to a college football program while overlooking player contributions” This shows that even the paid amount is less than a scholarship that the players get when in reality the players are the ones working the hardest.

College athletes should get paid because they make money for their school but get barely anything in return, they spend more time on the field than in classrooms, and lastly coaches earn millions a year and players who work hard are not rewarded. There are many different views on this topic and I hope I helped you pick one. This concludes my argument about why college athletes should get paid.

Why? More Arguments

The argument of paying college athletes has been going on for quite a while. Some say that because they are putting in so much work, that we should pay them. However, almost all degrees require some time for experience and to grow. Also, they should not worry over money and more on their education. Today we will answer the question: should we or should we not pay college athletes.

College athletes shouldn’t be paid more than a scholarship.If we are already paying them to go to school, why should we pay them to do what they actually came to do? In comparison, that could be paying college photographers or college doctors to basically continue their education, and learn. Another reason is the fear that these college athletes might be is them only focusing on their sport and not caring about the rest of their education. Also, the money might make them careless or irresponsible later in life.

However, some may disagree and argue that the college athletes should be paid more. One reason is that they spend over 40 hours a week practicing, which is the same amount as a full-time job. So, if they are spending this much time, shouldn’t they be paid? Actually, they are being paid by a scholarship that covers books, food, rent on campus, etc. Another point that college athletes work the same or harder than professional athletes. Despite that, playing on the team is a privilege, and college is the way to become a professional and now they shouldn’t be focused on money.

Now that we have argued that a scholarship is more than enough, we can now better their education, by not paying them. If we continue to pay them, we risk the chance of ruining the economy or hurting their chance of any type of retirement. So, let’s end the pressure, and stop paying them to continue their education!

Was this material helpful?

Related essays, about studysaurus, community. knowledge. success..

StudySaurus is run by two uni-students that still get a kick out of learning new things. We hope to share these experiences with you.

Ideas ,  concepts ,  tutorials,   essay papers  – everything we would’ve liked to have known, seen or heard during our high-school & UNI years, we want to bring to YOU.

Privacy & Cookies Policy Terms and Conditions DMCA Request

Survey shows most people want college athletes to be paid. You hear that, NCAA?

It's difficult for any fair-minded american to look at the vast amounts of money flowing into college sports and not see hypocrisy in its reliance on an unpaid labor force. .

When the legal threats to amateurism began to emerge about a dozen years ago, the NCAA’s main strategy was to claim that college sports would become less popular if athletes earned money. 

Administrators said it repeatedly in the media. They said it in court. They even threatened to take their ball and go home if schools had to pay the athletes who help generate hundreds of millions of dollars playing college football and basketball.

And now they all need to admit that they were wrong. Historically, spectacularly, wrong. 

A new national survey commissioned by Sportico in cooperation with The Harris Poll found that 67 percent of American adults believe college athletes should be paid — not just through name, image and likeness payments but in direct compensation from the school. 

Further, 64 percent of those surveyed believed athletes should be able to claim status as employees, and 59 percent were in favor of college athletes being able to bargain as a union. 

The numbers were relatively consistent across a variety of demographic groups. Whether man or woman, Democrat or Republican, white or Black, the notion of paying college athletes was supported by a majority of respondents. The only category registering less than 50 percent approval was respondents over the age of 58. 

This is only one poll and one data point in a long-running narrative, but the trends are clear. College sports officials would be wise to pay attention.

TOP 25 RANKINGS: A closer look at every team in college football's preseason coaches poll

A similar survey conducted in 2014 by the Washington Post and ABC News found that only 33 percent supported paying college athletes, including just 24 percent of white people. So when former NCAA president Mark Emmert testified during the O’Bannon vs. NCAA trial in 2014 that paying athletes would be “tantamount to converting it into minor league sports, and we know that in the U.S., minor league sports aren’t very successful either for fan support or for the fan experience,” he had at least some data to support it. 

But in the real world, there’s never been a link between the popularity of a sport and players being unable to make money. 

Golf and tennis exploded across the world once they became fully professionalized. The International Olympic Committee was staunchly against including professional athletes until the 1980s. Once they opened the floodgates, the Olympics only got bigger and more popular. And even amidst all the consternation over the messy implementation of NIL in college, there’s absolutely nothing in the data from ticket sales to television ratings to suggest that fans are being turned off because the star quarterback has a nice car to drive. 

It's been the same story time and time again throughout history: People like watching the games far more than they care about who’s getting paid to play them. 

So perhaps former Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany was slightly out of touch when he said during the O’Bannon trial: “These games are owned by the institution, and the notion of paying athletes for participation in these games is foreign to the notion of amateurism.”

Maybe Delany and his colleagues really believed that at the time — or had convinced themselves of it — because they had spent their entire careers in the amateur model and had no other frame of reference for what college sports would look like if the athletes had the same access to large amounts of money that coaches and administrators did. 

Or maybe they always knew they were full of it and used whatever rhetoric they could to preserve a dying system.

But you'd be laughed out of any room these days — and particularly a courtroom — if you tried to argue that college sports are widely consumed by the American public because players are unpaid students. 

Not only is it flatly untrue, as Sportico’s poll illustrates, but it is difficult for any fair-minded American to look at the vast amounts of money flowing into college sports and not see hypocrisy in its reliance on an unpaid labor force. 

We can have a good-faith argument about how sharing those revenues with college athletes would work and the variety of complications attached to things like Title IX, employment law and collective bargaining. The implementation might not be simple. But it wouldn’t offend the vast majority of fans, and it certainly wouldn’t lead to college sports turning into Triple-A baseball. 

In fact, when you look at how quickly the attitudes have shifted from being pretty strongly against paying college athletes to a significant majority in favor, it likely wouldn’t be controversial at all within a few years. 

The NCAA, which has built up a pretty bad track record in court trying to argue for amateurism over the last decade, simply can’t afford to ignore which way the wind is blowing on this. Even among some administrators, there is a growing resignation that revenue-sharing is the end game. Short of Congress giving the NCAA a lifeline, it’s probably the only way to end the stream of lawsuits that arise from a system that only restricts athletes’ earnings while everybody else’s go up, up and up. 

If you believe that’s an important principle to preserve in the NCAA model, go right ahead. But arguing that fans will revolt if athletes get paid is now officially a talking point from the Stone Age. 

More From Forbes

Why the public strongly supports paying college athletes.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

The Sportico/Harris poll shows a majority of people support players like Myan Williams of the Ohio ... [+] State Buckeyes earning money as student-athletes. (Photo by Gaelen Morse/Getty Images)

When student-athletes in 2021 were finally provided the chance to earn money from their name, image and likeness , some feared it would be the end of college sports as we knew it.

Fast forward two years, and the majority of Americans seem ready to let them bank even more bucks.

Nearly 70% of U.S. adults said college athletes should be able to receive direct compensation from their school when asked in a survey conducted this summer by Sportico and The Harris Poll.

“It’s about time,” sports attorney Luke Fedlam , founder of Advance NIL , said. “We have seen over the last 20 years the explosion in the commercialization of college sports. Look at the NCAA [March Madness] tournament. So much money is being made on student-athletes’ abilities. The idea that people are still coming around to is understanding and believing college athletes should receive compensation just makes sense.”

The poll, which surveyed 2,018 people nationally from Aug. 11–13, found 67% agreed college athletes should receive direct compensation from their universities, while 74% of respondents supported athletes’ ability to profit from NIL.

“I think it's good that athletes are getting their share,” Ohio University sports business professor B. David Ridpath said. “People are starting to come to the realization that not only is it inevitable, it's really the right thing to do.”

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

NIL became part of the sports landscape in June 2021 when the NCAA Board of Directors lifted NCAA restrictions on athlete payments for everything from sponsorships to personal appearances.

That same month, the Supreme Court voted unanimously that the NCAA can no longer limit education-related benefits that colleges offer athletes beyond tuition, including computers and internships. As part of what’s known as the Alston ruling, schools are now allowed to annually provide athletes with as much as $5,980 in education-related compensation .

Fedlam said the amount of money being poured into and flowing from collegiate sports has made it clear they are no longer purely about amateurism and love of competition. That means the move toward paying college athletes is an inevitability, not a debate.

“If college sports were solely about education and the benefits that could come from that, college sports would look entirely different,” Fedlam said. “Do we ruin college sports when we pay tens of millions to schools for broadcast rights, when March Madness makes $1 billion, when schools on the West Coast are aligning with Midwest and East Coast conferences to earn more compensation? That’s where sports have come.”

The survey also revealed 64% of respondents think college athletes should become university employees, an idea NCAA president Charlie Baker shot down at the April LEAD1 Association’s annual spring meeting, proclaiming, “I think student-athletes want to be student-athletes, and it’s up to us to figure out how to make that work for them in a variety of environments and in circumstances that are different.”

Democrats were much more in favor of direct compensation for college athletes than Republicans (78%-56%), while people who follow college sports favored the change at 78%, compared to 56% for those who do not follow sports closely.

More than 80% of respondents ages 18-41 supported athlete payments, while people over age 58 were just 48% in favor.

Ridpath said it sounds good in theory to allow athletes to be paid while in college, but to older fans more set in their ways, it is clearly far less accepted.

“The younger demographics are much more savvy than we were because they have access to more information,” he said. “This is the reality now.”

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Code Switch

• School Colors
• Perspectives

The Code Switch Podcast

• LISTEN & FOLLOW
• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts
• Amazon Music

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

Why Shouldn't We Pay Student-Athletes?

Maria Paz Gutierrez

Clemson's Aamir Simms (25) shoots against Auburn's Malik Dunbar (14) during a second round game of the 2018 NCAA men's basketball tournament last week. The NCAA will make $771 million from this year's tournament. Sean M. Haffey/Getty Images hide caption

Clemson's Aamir Simms (25) shoots against Auburn's Malik Dunbar (14) during a second round game of the 2018 NCAA men's basketball tournament last week. The NCAA will make $771 million from this year's tournament.

In 2009, the former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon took on the NCAA in a lawsuit that challenged the organization's ability to profit from the likenesses of college athletes in a video game. But as the case heated up, its stakes and scope began to sprawl, opening a can of worms that threatened to upend one of the bedrock principles of college sports: amateurism.

"I wanted ... to get the NCAA to at least admit that they were wrong in using former players likeness for profit, and that eventually branched off into current players owning their likeness and why they should," O'Bannon said to me on the Code Switch podcast. "Then it branched off later into actual current players getting paid from the universities and from the NCAA — not only basketball and football, but all athletes. Men and women."

The NCAA will make $771 million from the NCAA men's basketball tournament this year. The coaches at the biggest basketball schools have average salaries of around $3 million. But most Americans are not on board with the idea that the men who play the games should be paid.

There is a racial split here: A majority of white people oppose paying college athletes while a majority of black people are in favor. As we learned on the podcast, racial resentment toward African-Americans is a very strong predictor of opposition to paying student-athletes. (And let's not forget the racial optics of the NBA's "one-and-done rule, " by which most of the very best pro basketball prospects must spend a year masquerading as undergraduates because the NBA bars them from entry until they're a year out of high school.)

Ekow Yankah, a law professor at Cardozo Law School in New York City (and a huge fan of University of Michigan sports), offered a somewhat counterintuitive take on all this in a New Yorker essay, " Why N.C.A.A. Athletes Shouldn't Be Paid ." Yankah believes the current system is unfair and rife with exploitation, but believes that paying college athletes would essentially just entrench that arrangement.

Below is an edited version of our conversation with him on the Code Switch podcast episode, "The Madness of March."

Walk us through what you think might happen if we paid college athletes.

I think paying college athletes is almost certainly bad for the athletes, terrible for the universities and terrible for the sports they play. Other than that, it's a great idea. There's very little reason to think that a young athlete's life will be in any substantial way better if they become, so to speak, employees of the university.

Of course, many of these young men are under tremendous financial difficulty. I understand that a good number of them come from backgrounds which are difficult or even impoverished, and I'm well-aware that the demands of big-time college sports, but almost all college sports, are so consuming that there seems something unfair about their having to balance these two projects.

The problem is that paying them doesn't help relieve that stress, paying them only makes it the case that that stress seems justified. Paying college athletes will almost certainly exacerbate a problem that has been going on for generations, where athletes of a certain number of sports are seen as ever more divided from the actual student body. They're seen as tangential. They're seen as not real students. And, indeed, given that they will then have to trade some of the minimal protections that they have as student-athletes in order to simply be employees of the university, at least in some capacity. It seems like a pretty raw deal. All of this, by the way, is in exchange for what it would actually be, for the vast majority of athletes, a remarkably small amount of money on the free market.

You're saying that the best players would get the most money, but most players would get a pittance, if it was not equalized.

The point is that it's awfully hard to project which kids will be superstars. So outside of the small number of "can't-miss" prospects, most kids will actually be paid on some scale that reflects the deep uncertainty about how good they'll be. And if we want to see what that looks like, we don't have to use our imagination. We can look at the minor leagues: minor league basketball , minor league baseball and minor league hockey . Most of these young people are working nonstop. Most of them are just as talented, if not more talented, than the vast majority of college athletes. Most of them are paid roughly what a Starbucks barista is paid. And in exchange for all that, they give up their opportunity to go to college, to pursue their dreams and to turn out to not be a 20 year-old superstar but maybe a 40 year-old functioning adult.

You say that there is a racial component to the way that people think about the minor league systems, and the prospect of paying student-athletes in men's basketball and football.

One thing I worry about is this argument that, "Well, these students aren't really students, anyway. So let's just pay them." And I do think that has a racial component. It's not entirely racial, of course. Part of it is that people are well-aware and turned off by the huge financial incentive that the universities have.

But it's also true that there are a ton of different students on every college campus who are not straight-A math students. Somehow when we think about young black athletes and what they do, the sort of physical talent that they bring is not valued the same way that the ballerina's is or the chess player's is, or the musician's is — and I do find that worrying. I wonder why it is that these are multitalented people whose skills may not be at its highest in science class is so quickly dismissed.

It's very clear that the true developmental league of the NBA is currently college basketball. The true developmental league of the NFL is entirely college football. And, somehow, the answer seems to be, "disconnect these students from education" rather than, "why don't we do what we do with other sports and set up a robust semi-pro league?" One that would allow some students, those who are actually involved and engaged, to remain student-athletes and allow those for whom being a student-athlete has no part of their project to go on to do what they want to do.

But it seems like even with that system [where minor leagues for football and basketball exist alongside the traditional college system for those sports], there's still a lot of kids who have no illusions about the fact that that they're not going to go pro, who will go to college, who will try to make the most of their college experience and will still generate tons of revenue for those colleges while they personally struggle financially because they can't be paid. I'm just curious what happens to those kids.

I think that's a great question, and it gets the heart of how complex and hard this is. If you're a student-athlete who comes to Michigan well-aware that you're never going to professional, then there's a real sense in my mind's eye that you will make the deal that makes being a student-athlete worth it. That is to say, that your education will actually be valuable to you in a way that matters. You'll be much less likely to be fooled or to trade on these fumes of dreams that allow school after school to give college athletes empty classes with no value that end up with empty degrees with no value.

I am not interested in a bunch of young men who work for three or four years for a university making a minor league salary, which, if people actually looked at what that would be, is quite minimal. I'm interested in the next generation of doctors and lawyers and bankers. And in particular, for the sports that are dominated by African-American men, I'm deeply interested in the next generation of black doctors, black lawyers and black bankers, rather than kids who are seduced into trading that for making spending money from 18 to 22.

• student athletes
• student athlete
• college athletes

Paying college athletes appears closer than ever. How could it work and what stands in the way?

A settlement being discussed in an antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA and major college conferences could cost billions and pave the way for a compensation model for college athletes.

An agreement has not been finalized and many questions remain unanswered. It is also unclear if new rules could withstand further legal scrutiny, but it appears college sports is heading down a revolutionary path with at least some schools directly paying athletes to participate. Here's what is known and what still needs to be figured out:

House vs. NCAA is a class-action federal lawsuit seeking damages for athletes who were denied the opportunity, going back to 2016, to earn money from use of their name, image or likeness — often referred to by the acronym NIL. The plaintiffs, including former Arizona State swimmer Grant House, are also asking the court to rule that NIL compensation should include billions of dollars in media rights fees that go to the NCAA and the wealthiest conferences (Big Ten, Big 12, Atlantic Coast and Southeastern), mostly for football and basketball.

The settlement being discussed could have the NCAA paying nearly $3 billion in damages over 10 years, with help from insurance and withholding of distributions that would have gone to the four big conferences. Last year, NCAA revenue approached $1.3 billion and the association projects a steady rise in coming years, thanks mostly to increases baked into the television contract with CBS and Warner Bros. Discovery for the men's basketball tournament. A new, eight-year deal with ESPN worth $920 million for the Division I women's basketball tournament and other championship events takes effect in 2025.

The potential settlement also calls for a $300 million commitment from each school in those four conferences over 10 years, including about $20 million per year directed toward paying athletes. Administrators have warned that could lead to program cuts for the so-called non-revenue sports familiar to fans who watch the Olympics.

“It’s the Olympic sports that would be in jeopardy,” Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne said during a March panel in Washington led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) . “That’s men and women. If you look at the numbers for us at the University of Alabama, with our 19 sports outside of football and men’s basketball, we lost collectively almost $40 million."

Not entirely clear. Presumably, it would start with the athletes in sports that produce most of the revenue: football and men's basketball players at the biggest and wealthiest programs. Women's basketball is likely next in line, but it is possible athletes in all sports could see some benefit — but probably not at all schools.

What's being considered is allowing schools to pay athletes, but not requiring those payments. Schools that don't rake in millions in TV revenue wouldn't necessarily be on the hook. There are also unanswered questions about whether the federal gender equity law Title IX would require equal funding for male and female athletes.

Getting the presidential boards of four conferences and the NCAA board of governors to approve a settlement is not a given, not to mention the plaintiffs in the House case. Still, the possibility of having to pay $4 billion in damages — and the NCAA has been on the losing end of many recent court cases — has spurred interest in a deal before trial begins in January.

The case is being heard in the Northern District of California by U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken, who has already ruled against the NCAA other landmark antitrust lawsuits and ordered the sides in House to seek a settlement.

Settling existing cases is only one step. A new system for compensating college athletes would be needed to avoid similar challenges in the future; for example, anything that looks like a cap on compensation by, say, the four major conferences would be ripe for another lawsuit.

The NCAA has been asking Congress for some kind of antitrust exemption for years, but the emphasis has shifted lately from regulating NIL compensation to keeping the athletes from being deemed employees.

A ruling from an NLRB regional director paved the way for members of the Dartmouth men's basketball team to vote to join a union after being deemed employees, and many have advocated for collective bargaining as a solution to college sports' antitrust exposure.

Jason Stahl, executive director of the College Football Players Association advocacy group, says lawmakers should create a special status for college athletes that would give them the right to organize and collectively bargain without actual employee status.

Stahl said even though many college athletes are apprehensive about being employees and joining a union, they should have the right to decide that.

"My concern is there would be some type of one-two punch," Stahl said of a lawsuit settlement followed quickly by federal legislation to codify a revenue-sharing plan that precludes athletes from employee status and the right to organize. “A lot of things I'm hearing about this cap are not things I want to be hearing."

There are so many moving parts that it is hard to say with certainty, though settling House seems to a priority for late spring or summer. The earliest for any true changes noticed on campus would be fall of 2025.

AP college football: https://apnews.com/hub/college-football

Paying college athletes appears closer than ever. How could it work, what stands in the way?

A settlement being discussed in an antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA and major college conferences could cost billions and pave the way for a compensation model for college athletes.

An agreement has not been finalized and many questions remain unanswered. It is also unclear if new rules could withstand further legal scrutiny, but it appears college sports is heading down a revolutionary path with at least some schools directly paying athletes to participate. Here's what is known and what still needs to be figured out:

House vs. NCAA is a class-action federal lawsuit seeking damages for athletes who were denied the opportunity to earn money from use of their name, image or likeness going back to 2016. The plaintiffs, including former Arizona State swimmer Grant House, are also asking the court to rule that NIL compensation should include billions of dollars in media rights fees that go to the NCAA and the wealthiest conferences (Big Ten, Big 12, Atlantic Coast and Southeastern), mostly for football and basketball.

The settlement being discussed could have the NCAA paying nearly $3 billion in damages over 10 years, with help from insurance and withholding of distributions that would have gone to the four big conferences. Last year, NCAA revenue approached $1.3 billion and the association projects a steady rise in coming years, thanks mostly to increases baked into the television contract with CBS and Warner Bros. Discovery for the men's basketball tournament. A new, eight-year deal with ESPN worth $920 million for the Division I women's basketball tournament and other championship events takes effect in 2025.

The potential settlement also calls for a $300 million commitment from each school in those four conferences over 10 years, including about $20 million per year directed toward paying athletes. Administrators have warned that could lead to program cuts for the so-called non-revenue sports familiar to fans who watch the Olympics.

“It’s the Olympic sports that would be in jeopardy,” Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne said during a March panel in Washington led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. “That’s men and women. If you look at the numbers for us at the University of Alabama, with our 19 sports outside of football and men’s basketball, we lost collectively almost $40 million."

Who gets paid?

It's not entirely clear. Presumably, it would start with the athletes in sports that produce most of the revenue: football and men's basketball players at the biggest and wealthiest programs. Women's basketball is likely next in line, but it is possible athletes in all sports could see some benefit – but probably not at all schools.

What's being considered is allowing schools to pay athletes, but not requiring those payments. Schools that don't rake in millions in TV revenue wouldn't necessarily be on the hook. There are also unanswered questions about whether the federal gender equity law Title IX would require equal funding for male and female athletes.

Who makes the call?

Getting the presidential boards of four conferences and the NCAA board of governors to approve a settlement is not a given, not to mention the plaintiffs in the House case. Still, the possibility of having to pay $4 billion in damages – and the NCAA has been on the losing end of many recent court cases – has spurred interest in a deal before trial begins in January.

The case is being heard in the Northern District of California by U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken, who has already ruled against the NCAA other landmark antitrust lawsuits and ordered the sides in House to seek a settlement.

Employment and collective bargaining

Settling existing cases is only one step. A new system for compensating college athletes would be needed to avoid similar challenges in the future; for example, anything that looks like a cap on compensation by, say, the four major conferences would be ripe for another lawsuit.

The NCAA has been asking Congress for some kind of antitrust exemption for years, but the emphasis has shifted lately from regulating NIL compensation to keeping the athletes from being deemed employees.

A ruling from an NLRB regional director paved the way for members of the Dartmouth men's basketball team to vote to join a union after being deemed employees, and many have advocated for collective bargaining as a solution to college sports' antitrust exposure.

Jason Stahl, executive director of the College Football Players Association advocacy group, says lawmakers should create a special status for college athletes that would give them the right to organize and collectively bargain without actual employee status.

Stahl said even though many college athletes are apprehensive about being employees and joining a union, they should have the right to decide that.

"My concern is there would be some type of one-two punch," Stahl said of a lawsuit settlement followed quickly by federal legislation to codify a revenue-sharing plan that precludes athletes from employee status and the right to organize. “A lot of things I'm hearing about this cap are not things I want to be hearing."

What's next?

There are so many moving parts that it is hard to say with certainty, though settling House seems to a priority for late spring or summer. The earliest for any true changes noticed on campus would be fall of 2025.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Student Opinion

What Should Be Done About the Gender Pay Gap in Sports?

Caitlin Clark’s rookie salary in the W.N.B.A. is a fraction of the multimillion dollar contract that Victor Wembanyama signed last year.

By Jeremy Engle

Caitlin Clark, the electrifying basketball point guard for the University of Iowa, ended an extraordinary , record-breaking year on a high note when she was selected first in the W.N.B.A. draft on April 15.

But when it emerged that Clark’s salary — $338,056 over the next four years — was a fraction of the $55 million contract signed by Victor Wembanyama, last year’s top N.B.A. draft pick, many people in the sports world and beyond were shocked and dismayed.

The disparity in the two contracts has drawn intense scrutiny during a pivotal moment for sports, even prompting critical comments from President Biden. What’s your reaction to Clark’s rookie salary? Do you think the superstar sharpshooter, and female athletes in general, is being paid unfairly? What does her contract say about the state of women’s athletics?

In “ Biden Weighs in on Caitlin Clark Salary Debate After W.N.B.A. Draft ,” Neil Vigdor writes about the reaction to Clark’s contract:

President Biden jumped into a debate about gender and sports this week, calling for pay equity for women athletes after Caitlin Clark, the University of Iowa basketball standout, was selected first in the W.N.B.A. Draft. Ms. Clark’s salary will be far less than that of her male counterparts. Mr. Biden, writing on X on Tuesday, said that for all their accomplishments in sports, women athletes were undervalued. “Right now we’re seeing that even if you’re the best, women are not paid their fair share,” he said. “It’s time that we give our daughters the same opportunities as our sons and ensure women are paid what they deserve.” Mr. Biden was nodding to a banner moment for women’s basketball, one powered by stars like Ms. Clark, who was chosen by the W.N.B.A.’s Indiana Fever , and Paige Bueckers of the University of Connecticut and Angel Reese of L.S.U. But Ms. Clark’s salary will amount to $338,056 over the next four years, under the W.N.B.A.’s collective bargaining agreement . The total is a fraction of the contract of Victor Wembanyama, whom the San Antonio Spurs chose with the top pick in last year’s N.B.A. Draft. His contract was for $55 million, according to Spotrac , a website that tracks salaries in sports. The disparity has drawn intense scrutiny during a pivotal moment for sports, particularly in college athletics. Students have gained the opportunity to monetize their athletic success through name, image and likeness, or N.I.L. deals, that can earn top stars like Ms. Clark millions of dollars. But the overall compensation of women in sports is far outpaced by how much money male athletes make. The women’s national championship game, in which Ms. Clark’s Iowa lost to South Carolina, earned higher ratings for the first time than the men’s championship contest between UConn and Purdue.

In a related piece, “ The Big Number: $76,535, ” Marie Solis takes a closer look at the economics of why Clark will be paid so little as a player for the Indiana Fever compared with what her male counterparts in the N.B.A. make:

The longstanding disparity between the men’s and women’s teams has to do with the leagues’ finances. The pot of money for players’ salaries is based on a percentage of revenue: While the N.B.A. generates annual revenue of about $10 billion, the W.N.B.A. pulls in about $200 million a year, and the men get a larger percentage of their league’s revenue than the women do. But that could change, in part because of Clark. Sales of Clark’s Fever jersey at Fanatics, the digital sportswear retailer, broke its draft-night record for any draft pick in any sport. She also drew millions more viewers to ESPN’s coverage of the draft, and teams are anticipating a spike in ticket sales to W.N.B.A. games. Clark is also likely to have other sources of income. She is nearing a $20 million deal with Nike, according to The Athletic.

Students, read the entire article and then tell us:

What is your reaction to Clark’s rookie contract with the Indiana Fever? Do you think it’s fair that her four-year salary of $338,056 is a small fraction of Wembanyama’s $55 million contract?

On the social media platform X, Biden said : “Right now we’re seeing that even if you’re the best, women are not paid their fair share. It’s time that we give our daughters the same opportunities as our sons and ensure women are paid what they deserve.” Do you agree? What message does the salary disparity between Clark and Wembanyama send to female athletes — and to the young women aspiring to play professionally one day?

Solis points out that the N.B.A. generates an annual revenue of about $10 billion, while the W.N.B.A. pulls in about $200 million a year. Is the gender pay gap simply a reflection of economics? Or do you think other factors are at play, too?

What do you think should be done about the gender pay gap in professional basketball and in all sports? What can sports leagues and governing bodies, colleges and universities, media companies and fans do to make sure that female athletes receive the respect and pay they deserve in our society?

Are you a Clark fan? Will you be following her and the W.N.B.A. when the season starts on May 14? Do you think Clark will continue to excel on the court and draw soaring ticket sales and television ratings in the W.N.B.A., as she did in college?

Students 13 and older in the United States and Britain, and 16 and older elsewhere, are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public and may appear in print.

Find more Student Opinion questions here. Teachers, check out this guide to learn how you can incorporate these prompts into your classroom.

Jeremy Engle joined The Learning Network as a staff editor in 2018 after spending more than 20 years as a classroom humanities and documentary-making teacher, professional developer and curriculum designer working with students and teachers across the country. More about Jeremy Engle