Sign In Using Facebook  |  Sign In  |  Sign Up

College Athletes Should Not Be Paid

Bob Whalon Written by Bob Whalon, Tuesday September 27 2011
Text Size - A +
There is an on-going debate about whether or not college athletes should be paid to play their sport.  I am firmly on the side of the argument that says that they should not be paid.  My reasons are many, but chief among them is that they can't be paid.  Let me explain.
 
There is a federal law called Title IX that states that schools receiving federal aid must provide equal opportunities to men and women.  In other words, there must be an equal number of men's and women's sports teams at every school.  This makes paying college athletes nearly impossible, since the very existence of Title IX would require every college athlete at a particular school to be paid the same amount.  In essence, a school would be legally required to pay the members of the women's synchronized swimming team the same as the star quarterback on the football team.  Income is an opportunity that cannot be bestowed upon only male athletes, which is what the proponents of paying athletes are talking about.
 
Setting aside the illegality of paying only men's football and basketball players for a second, let's look at some of the other issues involved.
 
Where exactly would this money come from?  The answer is most likely from your pockets. 
 
The NCAA recently released data showing that only 14 programs are turning a profit on their own.  While the NCAA would not release the names of those schools, a few are known.  Notre Dame admitted that they pour money back into the athletic department.  Their private broadcast deal for football with NBC allowed them to give back $10 million in 2009 alone.  Other schools who have been confirmed to turn a profit are Alabama, Florida, LSU, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio State and Tennessee.  In case you didn't notice, all of those schools have a big-time football or basketball program, or both, that generate all of the money.
 
As a Penn State alumnus, I know that the football program not only supports itself, but also supports all of the other programs at the university as well.  There was actually a debate many years ago when head football coach Joe Paterno allowed the Nike logo to be put on the team's jerseys.  That was significant, since Penn State has the blandest uniforms in all of sports.  There are no logos or even names on the uniforms.  But Paterno explained that by accepting the money for the product placement, he was able to pour millions back into the athletic department each year.  While some considered that "selling out", I counter that such a move allowed, say for example, the women's water polo team to travel to a national meet.  Title IX, remember?
 
So where exactly would the money come from for the other 300+ schools with college athletes?  Taxpayers.  That's right, if college athletes get paid, your tax dollars could be used to pay them.
 
Most schools already get federal funding, so they would need more in order to pay the athletes.  Or maybe they could just get rid of a few of those pesky teachers to save a few dollars.  One solution would be to re-classify the athletes as employees and pay them through the Federal Work-Study Program (FWS).  Playing a sport would be considered that student's job, which isn't really that much of a stretch with the way things work with our federal government.  Students can work up to 20 hours a week and earn up to $4,000 during the school year and $3,000 during the summer.  The federal government uses your tax dollars to pay 75 percent of that amount.
 
In this exercise, let's consider the fact that there were 167,000 Division I athletes in 2009-10.  If every one of those athletes received the maximum amount of $7,000, that would require addition FWS funding of $1.17 billion each year, with more than $875 million of that coming from the federal government.  And that doesn't even take into account all the athletes at the lower division schools. 
 
The last time I checked, this country is in a recession.  I can't envision Joe and Jane Lunchpail happily paying more taxes so that college athletes can get paid to play a game.
 
Besides, college athletes don't actually play for free now.  Almost all of them receive a scholarship to play their sport.  Depending on the school, a full scholarship can be worth as much as $200,000.  Since only athletes get this benefit, I don't see how this isn't already considered a payment to these students.
 
Another option to pay the athletes is by letting them profit off of the merchandise sold with their name or number.  I understand how this solution gives a real world education to these students in Capitalism, but again, it wouldn't pass the Title IX requirements.  Obviously the star quarterback's jersey or even autograph would get him more money than the paddle from the star of the table tennis team.
 
Those who point to the $10.8 billion deal the NCAA just cut with CBS/Turner Sports for March Madness (men's basketball tournament) and the $500 million the Bowl Championship Series (BCS - for college football) just got from ESPN, fail to acknowledge that not all schools receive an equal share of those revenues.  As a matter of fact, the BCS may be in danger of violating federal anti-trust laws, so that money may disappear.
 
Another popular solution is to allow boosters to pay the athletes.  Again, that violates Title IX, since boosters wouldn't be willing to pay for every athlete.  Agents paying the players?  Nope, Title IX again. 
 
And finally, let's assume that there is a way to pay every single athlete at every single school in America.  Do you really think that will stop certain players from breaking those rules and accepting more money illegally from boosters or agents?  A star athlete on the football team is going to resent being paid the same as the backup goalie on the women's ice hockey team since his team generates millions of dollars for the school, while her team only costs the school money.  That athlete will then find his local Nevin Shapiro (U. of Miami scandal) and take his offering of money, cars and strippers.  Or what if a player takes money from an unscrupulous character with ties to illegal gambling?  Can you imagine the point-shaving scandals that would ensue when the players are pressured to "pay back" the money they were given?  That's not pretty, but it's the reality of the situation.
 
Also, how could a tiny school like Florida International compete financially with a school like the University of Florida?  While they do play in the same division in college football, the schools don't have the same revenue streams and there certainly aren't boosters or agents handing out the same "perks" to athletes at both schools.  The same argument can be made against allowing the athletes to sign individual endorsement deals.  That could certainly be the deciding factor in where a high school recruit goes to college, since the bigger school would provide the athlete with a better endorsement opportunity.  That would lead to a competitive imbalance in college sports.  Yes, even worse than college football already is with the BCS.
 
The only rational conclusion to reach in this debate is that you can't pay college athletes to play their sport.  Every argument to pay the players can be easily dismissed when considering federal laws, finances and common sense.  Besides, college athletes are already paid a hefty amount in the form of a scholarship.  I understand that college athletes don't all play for the love of the game, but they should.  Nobody is forcing them to play their sport.  They made a conscious decision to play their chosen sport.  Whether they do so for the free scholarship, the opportunity to possibly become a professional athlete, or simply for the love of the game doesn't matter.  College athletes shouldn't get paid to play a game.
 

Tags:  



Recent Penn State Articles






Leave a comment

Name *
Email *
Website

Create date
— :

Article

Sport

City

Team

Photo

X

Not So Fast! To publish your comment, you have to login

Not Registered? Register now as it only take 20 seconds!



Click here to browse




0 comments