March Madness is a term used to describe the renowned 64-team NCAA Division I basketball tournament. The increasing popularity of the tournament and subsequent revenue generated by it raises questions regarding whether to pay student-athletes over-and-above scholarships. We wonder if the priority of these collegiate institutions and their governing body, the NCAA, is athletics and making money while overlooking that these athletes are students first. Overall, the debate on whether college athletes should receive stipends or endorsements on top of their scholarships essentially boils down to priority and purpose – education or profits.

Prioritizing Profits

         The controversial opinion is that college athletes should receive stipends or salaries on top of their scholarships which suggests that academic institutions value athletics and revenue over education. Paying athletes sends a message to academia and hard-working students that they are not as important or deserving for their arduous work studying their field. However, athletes earn money for their colleges and the NCAA and deserve to be paid for their efforts (as seen in the table). Supporters argue that playing college sports is a full-time job, switching from the weight room, to practice, to film sessions, to games, while still finding time for classes and homework. All these activities do not allow time for wage-earning employment. Instead, college athletes are revenue generators for their institution and the NCAA. Michael Wilbon, a featured columnist for ESPN.com, ESPNChicago.com, wrote for the Washington Post for 30 years, and also one of the nation’s most respected sports journalists, says, “The best football and basketball players in the Big Ten have produced…a television network…worth at least tens of millions of dollars… Yet, no player can benefit from that work. The players have become employees of the universities and conferences as much as students – employees with no compensation, which not only violates common decency but perhaps even the law” (Wilbon). If athletes are viewed through a capitalist lens, they would appear to be employees of their colleges which are not paid for their work and deserve to be. For example, broadcasting March Madness generates a staggering amount of money. “Despite CBS Sports and Turner paying over $1 billion a year for broadcasting the NCAA March Madness basketball tournament up until 2023, the broadcasts’ college sports stars themselves will not receive much of that sum (at least not directly)” (NCAA.com). These college athletes make these profitable television/Internet/radio rights fees possible and deserve to be compensated.

         Despite the student-athletes’ hard-work on the court/field, coaches receive money in the form of bonuses, large salaries and endorsements that amount to millions (as seen in the table), and far surpass the cost of tuition. Some benefits of prioritizing profits include athletes finishing their degrees instead of joining professional leagues early and athletes getting compensated for the physical risks they are taking that can affect their scholarships and future careers. In contrast, paying athletes could cause them to skip class as they are already making money and feel they do not need the education, encourage fiscal irresponsibility, and not all athletes would receive additional salaries. “…You know what that’s called? Capitalism. Not everything is equal, not everything is fair. The most distinguished professor at the University of Alabama won’t make $5.9 million in his entire tenure in Tuscaloosa; Nick Saban will make that this year. So I don’t want to hear that it’s ‘unfair’ to pay the quarterback of Alabama more than all the sociology students in the undergraduate college” (Wilbon). Wilbon touches on the fact that colleges are already geared toward profits and capitalism because they pay coaches a lot more than professors. However, only paying certain athletes raises the question of gender equality and if paying only certain athletes is fair.

Neutral Priority

          The perspective often disregarded is allowing college athletes to receive corporate endorsements. By not paying athletes directly, colleges implicitly do not condone earning money through their sports teams. College athletes will be able to use their talents to endorse themselves and earn money.  Wilbon compares athletic talent to musical talent as he states, “…What would stop a star player from agreeing to shake hands at a local car dealership for $50,000? The answer is nothing… If a music student goes out in the summer and earns 50 grand, who objects? Who even knows? The student-musician is no less a college student because he struck a lucrative deal” (Wilbon). Additionally, athletes are beginning to feel used as they are branded by companies without pay. “Big companies are profiting off of branding college athletes, namely, asking them to wear brand apparel during games without paying them to do so. As such, these players feel used” (Rosenberg). In other words, athletes are advertising companies for free.

          Allowing endorsements takes a fairly neutral stance but still has pros and cons. The benefits include the following:  1) NCAA and colleges would not need to determine who gets stipends and how much; 2) corporations would be paying the athletes; and 3) signing endorsement deals benefit both athletes and corporations. In comparison, the amount of money could get out of hand encouraging fiscal irresponsibility and, worse, athletes could prioritize endorsements over their team goals. Further, allowing endorsements could raise questions as to if the NCAA or colleges should regulate the number of endorsements an athlete can receive.

Prioritizing Education

          If the NCAA maintains the status quo, it demonstrates that athletes are not viewed above intellectuals, musicians, or artists and that education is more important than money. While athletes do not have time for a job, neither do other students if they are taking a full course load, study enough to get straight A’s, and participate in outside activities to further their career. Maintaining the current rule against paying additional stipends to college athletes is the easiest choice and would not stir up much controversy. Whereas if athletes were to start receiving pay, the pay would not be fair because men’s basketball and football from certain schools would most likely be the only sports earning enough money to pay athletes and keep the programs going. Wilbon puts this into perspective when he says, “Because so many athletic departments run at a deficit, it’s difficult to make the case that schools should pay regular salaries to athletes, even football players who produce more income than anybody” (Wilbon).  Paying athletes is capitalism at its core; however, college education and athletics don’t have to be capitalistic but instead focus on educating students and providing a good experience.

         Prioritizing education over revenue and sports seems justified for colleges and the NCAA, however, there are pros and cons to this choice as well. The NCAA and individual colleges would not be assigned to determine which athletes get paid and the amounts, and it would keep money fair across the board between genders, college popularity, sports, and individual career paths. Conversely, players might decide to avoid college to protect their professional careers by avoiding injury and to immediately earn money for themselves and family.

Takeaways

        The controversial topic of paying college athletes boils down to priorities and purpose of the institutions involved. Colleges and the NCAA could side with athletes, prioritizing profits and sports, and working out compensation packages. Contrastingly, colleges and the NCAA could prioritize academics and support “amateurism” which demonstrates that intellectuals, musicians, and artists are equally as important. While there are many benefits and consequences of each argument, the fact of the matter is that prioritizing money and sports over education, will change the relationship between students and colleges and is not going away any time soon.

 

Works Cited

“March Madness: Meet the 2017 NCAA Tournament Teams.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 13 Mar. 2017, http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2017/03/12/meet-ncaa-tournament-march-madness-teams/99106652/. 

NCAA.com. “Turner, CBS and the NCAA Reach Long-Term Multimedia Rights Extension for DI Men’s Basketball.” NCAA.com, NCAA.com, 12 Apr. 2016, www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2016-04-12/turner-cbs-and-ncaa-reach-long-term-multimedia-rights.

Rosenberg, Brian. “How the N.C.A.A. Cheats Student Athletes.” The New York
Times, The New York Times, 3 Oct. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/opinion/how-the-ncaa-cheats-student-athletes.html.

Solomon, Jon. “The History Behind the Debate Over Paying NCAA Athletes.” The Aspen Institute, 24 May 2018, www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/history-behind-debate-paying-ncaa-athletes/.

Wilbon, Michael. “College Athletes Deserve to Be Paid.” ESPN, ESPN Internet Ventures, 18 July 2011, www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6778847/college-athletes-deserve-paid.