College Athletes: To Pay, or Not To Pay?

With the recent “scandal” involving Johnny Manziel possibly getting paid for his autograph, the always controversial topic of whether college athletes should be paid is back in the news. There are convincing arguments to be made for both sides, but it is my firm opinion that they should not be paid.

Lets start by examining the fact that these “student”-athletes are already being paid for their services to the school. For last season’s run to the BCS National Championship Game, a full scholarship player at Notre Dame received a scholarship worth almost $52,000 which covers complete cost of enrollment (classes, books, lodging, meals, fees, etc) and the athlete is not required to pay any of it back. So while most students are taking out loans and worrying about how they will pay for college, the scholarship athlete is simply worried about practice because everything is taken care of. One of the main arguments that many athletes use in order to make their case for getting paid is that college athletics is a “full-time job” which leaves them no time to get a real job and earn some extra spending money. I have seen firsthand what athletes in revenue generating sports at a mid-major Division I school go through and I would tend to agree with them. However, even if that is the case they are being paid a relatively large annual salary in the form of their scholarship. While that scholarship money never actually goes into the athlete’s pocket it is still money given to them for a service that they are not required to pay back.

Many proponents of keeping college athletics amateur will say that the fact that these boys/girls are offered a free education is priceless and worth more than any money that would be paid out to them. I will not make that argument in this space because its both shortsighted and naïve. The athletes being the most vocal about being paid tend to be the stars that merely use college as a jumping ground to the pros. The star athletes that stay only one or two years certainly aren’t interested in an education no matter the cost, they are simply trying to showcase themselves and their abilities to the professional scouts. These kids do not use college for what it is intended for, they use it as a minor league to get themselves ready for the pros. Take the “one and done” basketball players for instance. Those young men attend class for the first semester and once they come back from winter break never step foot in a classroom again because the way the NCAA is set up they use your grades from the previous semester to determine your eligibility. So in theory, if you knew you were leaving for the NBA at the end of March why would you continue to attend classes. This is not just a problem with the “one and done” kids its a problem with every student that leaves early. The ability to get an education is secondary to playing ball to most of these athletes and that is where many people arguing that the scholarship is worth more than its weight are going wrong with their argument.

Many major Division I athletes complain that the schools they are playing for make millions of dollars off of their blood and sweat and they are so broke they cant go out to eat. This may be true, but my major issues with that statement is a) they do not have to go out anywhere and eat because all their meals are free on campus and b) there is no longer an NCAA rule prohibiting working during the school year or even summer for college athletes. What this means is that if they really wanted to they could work part-time jobs to earn money to spend on whatever they want. You might be thinking “well didn’t you just say a few paragraphs ago that playing Division I sports is a full-time job?” The answer to that is yes, but its only a full-time job while the sport is in season. During the offseason there is ample opportunity to get a job somewhere to earn a little money to spend during the year. Also, if these athletes are so busy studying, practicing, working out, and studying film when do they have time to go out and party or spend all this money? Long story short, everything that a student could possibly need is provided for them by the university (tutors, room and board, meals, textbooks, etc) so anything else they would need money for is frivolous and should not be provided by the university.

The argument that angers me the most in this debate is someone saying that the university is exploiting the student-athletes in order to make millions of dollars while only paying out a small portion of that back to them. That is simply the way business works. These kids need to realize that no matter where they go in life, whether its professional sports or an everyday 9-to-5 job, the people that control the wealth will always withhold as much as possible. Try crying poverty to a person making minimum wage at a large chain retailer that still has to find a way to pay for all the debt they have accrued while going to college on their own dime. College sports are a business and like every business the people in charge reap the majority of the rewards for the work of the laborers. That same person making minimum wage in a billion dollar company wouldn’t think to complain publicly about making the company money and not getting paid in a reflective manner, so why should these athletes feel compelled to?

Almost every college student in the country has to take out some sort of loan in order to pay for college, the question I would like to ask is why cant these athletes do them same thing if they absolutely need spending money throughout the school year? I understand that many of the athletes I am talking about here come from lower-income families and may not necessarily qualify for loans, but they do have an expected income if they are exceptionally good at the sport they play. This is the way that LeBron James’ mother was able to buy him a car while he was in high school, she took a loan out to buy it using his athletic ability as collateral against the loan. So what is stopping, say Jadeveon Clowney from doing the same thing? I’m not saying that he is in a position where he needs to, I am simply using him as an example because he will more than likely be a top-5 pick in next year’s draft barring injury. Injuries are one of the reasons that people may give for why taking loans out against your athletic abilities is a poor idea, but you can also take out insurance policies that guard against injury.

Finally, the biggest misconception in this entire debate is that fact that if you pay these kids they will no longer accept illegal money. If you honestly think that because you give a kid a stipend for spending money that he wouldn’t take more money from a booster then I have some oceanfront property in Montana I would love to sell you on the cheap. Boosters offering kids money for good performance or for memorabilia is a constant problem within college sports, simply giving the kids some money will not stem that. If a kid has a $1,000 stipend what happens when he isn’t fiscally responsible with that money and needs more? The answer to that is he finds a booster willing to give him more. The only way to get rid of the illegal payment of players is to make it no longer illegal.

While I am vehemently against paying college athletes, I am also a realist and realize that it will eventually happen. College athletics has become a monster business and the universities and conferences have to protect their product and make sure that it is absolutely the best it can be and it appears that the best way to ensure that is to start paying the players.