Why Paying College Athletes would be detrimental to the NCAA

Why Paying College Athletes Would be Detrimental to the NCAA

RSM 369 Moral & Ethics

Debate Paper

Dating back many years, people have always weighed in on the pros and cons attached to

compensating college athletes. Recently however, this argument has increasingly gained steam

due to increased revenues and sponsorships amongst many top universities. As many believe that

Paying College Athletes 1

student athletes deserve to be compensated, doing so would be too complex, unreasonable, and

destructive to many smaller universities that are barely operational. Further, society cannot forget

that being a college athlete is a privilege that is earned through excelling in areas beyond the

sport itself. Positioning against paying college athletes is merely the realization to the future’s of

student athletes and the various colleges in the United States.

As expected, the NCAA as a whole makes millions of dollars in revenue yearly. In fact,

according to USA today for the 2014 fiscal year the NCAA made $989 million dollars, just short

of one billion (Berk, 2015). Obviously, big teams in such divisions like the SEC or Big 12,

generate millions of dollars through their football programs alone. For example, in 2014 the

Texas Longhorns out of the Big 12 made a total beyond 161 million dollars based off data from

USA today (USA2). Though there is a lot of talk about the large quantity of money generated off

college athletics, few understand that 90% of what’s earned is reinvested into various student

athlete support systems according to the official website of the NCAA (NCAA1, 2015).

Reinvestments include but are not limited to various scholarship funds, educational enhancement

funds, and even wealth distribution amongst lower level colleges. These various allotted funds

are strictly in place for the better of the student athletes.

The reality of paying college players would undoubtedly benefit some college athletes,

but, according to the NCAA’s official page, there are approximately 460,000 of them competing

(NCAA1, 2015), making it difficult for paying them all to become a reality. Ultimately,

misunderstanding the complexity of collegiate athletics, makes paying players seem a lot

simpler. Complex issues arise such as determining the pay scale for each athlete and how to

distribute the money to different sports programs at each school. These questions are largely

unanswered due various roadblocks. Further, in terms of the revenue generated per team, equal

Paying College Athletes 2

competition would be near impossible. For example, if you were to take the Texas Longhorns of

the Big 12 and compare them to Iowa State, who are also with the Big 12, and consider their

$92,864,806 million dollar difference in revenue according to USA Today, how could you

facilitate a financial plan that would allow for somewhat equal competition? Considering that the

revenue difference is as severe as it is, this goal would be very unlikely.

Another factor that is seldom mentioned is the amount of benefits that are already being

provided to student athletes from their universities. Though it may not come in the form of a

cash payment, the NCAA funds many programs that benefit the educational, financial, and health

needs of student athletes. Among the educational benefits offered are scholarship programs,

degree-completion grants, and internship opportunities. The financial benefits offered include

assistance in the case of a catastrophic injury and a program to help students deal with unmet

financial needs. The NCAA also offers year-round drug-testing programs to all student athletes

for their benefit (NCAA 2, 2015) Thank to this large variety of benefits, it is clear that the

student athletes are offered a large amount of assistance to help assist them throughout their time

with their universities.

Now that the benefits that college student athletes receive have been brought to light, lets

propose the question of what would happen if all of those benefits were suddenly taken away

from the students so they could all be paid instead. Once the revenue was divided up and

salaries were granted, the students would actually end up on the wrong side of the financial issue.

Then, all of a sudden, the same student athletes that were all lobbying to be paid for playing

would be the same individuals complaining about how all of their benefits were taken from them.

Though the benefits currently offered by the NCAA may not seem like enough to some student

athletes now, once those benefits were no longer an option they would realize the importance of

Paying College Athletes 3

them. Yes the students would be paid, but after all of the program expenses were dealt with and

the rest of the revenue was divided up amongst everyone, the salaries would not be enough to

benefit the students.

As of now, student athletes on scholarship get free room and board. If that scholarship

was taken from them and replaced with a salary, that would be a huge sum of money that those

athletes would need to suddenly account for. In fact, the average cost of room and board at a

four-year university is $10,138 (Collegedata, 2015), which would then be money coming straight

out of the student athlete’s pocket. Also, once the current NCAA benefits were no longer on the

table, if a student athlete were to suffer a severe injury, the university’s financial assistance

would no longer be an option. So even though the idea of being paid to play may seem good at

first, students would soon come to find that it would actually hurt them more than it would help.

When talking about the benefits that college student athletes receive during their time in

school, one factor that is seldom mentioned is the benefit of media exposure. The benefits of

universities and their student athletes being covered extensively by the media heavily favor the

athletes, as these actions give them the national exposure that helps to open doors for them

throughout their careers. A prime example of this would be the 2015 NCAA men’s basketball

tournament. This year, the tournament averaged 11.3 million viewers, which was up eight

percent from last year and was the highest average viewership in twenty-two years (NCAA 3,

2015). This kind of exposure for universities and their athletes, though coming in different

amount depending on the school, not only puts the athlete’s names on the map, but helps to open

career doors for them in the future.

Another factor that must be considered when talking about paying student athletes is Title

IX. If men get paid to play college sports, Title IX says women do, too. The National Labor

Paying College Athletes 4

Relations Board ruled that football players at Northwestern University are considered employees

of their university and have the right to form unions and also partake in collective bargaining.

The group that is arguing does not actually want to be paid to play, which is called, pay to play,

but they are instead simply asking for medical benefits and other things of that nature. If this gets

passed, people fear that college players will soon ask for actual salaries. The main sport that has

been the center of this argument is football, but the ruling from the National Labor Relations

Board would also impact women’s sport. If men get paod to play, then the women players must

also get paid, according to Title IX. A law professor from Western New England University once

explained in a blog if the men players were to get their medical needs and extended health

insurance, this would violate Title IX rules. Even though the men were the only athletes to speak

out about the situation and medical needs, according to Title IX regulations schools are required

to provide equal treatment to men’s and women’s programs. Everyone does not agree with those

regulations though, as previous court cases have ruled that it is okay for male coaches to be paid

more than female coaches due to the fact that men's’ sports bring in more money. Others have

argued that pay should be based on the revenue that a sport generates for its school. Even though

Title IX are regulations that mandate athletes and not coaches, it has also caused universities to

starting to worry about their wallets as well. ( Eveleth, 2014)

The main question that you may be asking is, if the courts allow football and men’s

basketball players to be paid or give them the right to collectively bargain, how does Title IX

factor into this equation? As of now, there has not been a case law just yet to provide us with that

answer. There have only been practical answers voiced by presidents, commissioners, and

athletic directors saying that if players are paid then it may result in women’s sports and non-

revenue men’s sports being cut. (Solomon, 2014) There is no way around Title IX to allow

Paying College Athletes 5

schools to only pay athletes who are in profitable schools, which are football and men’s

basketball. The idea of excluding revenue-producing schools from Title IX compliance goes all

the way back to 1972. Those attempts however, such as 1974’s Tower Amendment, have

failed(Voepel, 2011). Title IX has been seen as a roadblock for “pay to play”. They are seen as a

roadblock because of the gap between the profits of those two sports programs and all of the

other sports both male and female. This means that despite the friction between men’s sport and

Title IX, the latter may serve as the best protection for every program against pay for play that

did not take into account of all student-athletes (Voepel, 2011).

Paying players college athletes also creates controversy within the team, in relation to

uneven pay. For example, every team has its star players, or players that earn more recognition

than others. Knowing this, it is believed that it’s only fair that those star players deserve more

money than the less prominent players. Here lies another issue, Title IX clearly states that each

player, male or female, should get treated equally. There is not a clear way to manage everyone’s

egos by deciding to pay each individual athlete. Instead, this would create a toxic individualistic

environment in which everyone wants that top dollar, potentially destroying team chemistry. As

previously stated, by following through with paying college athletes, the NCAA will feel a

irreparable ripple effect destroying many low revenue College Athletic Programs.

Overall, the concept of paying college athletes, though may sound good, would not work

for the NCAA. When you consider all of the revenue that would have to be allocated to paying

these players, it does not make sense to sacrifice all of the other benefits that the university’s

offers in order to grant salaries to each individual. As of now, the NCAA offers its student

athletes numerous benefits that no longer could exist if they replace them with stipends. In the

long run, this lack of benefits would ultimately hinder the college athlete more than the salary

Paying College Athletes 6

would help them. Another factor that has to be considered is university revenue, as some schools,

such as Texas or Alabama, make significantly more money than smaller schools. This would, as

a result, affect the amount of salary that could be given to the university’s players, and ultimately

affect the university’s ability to function as a whole. Title IX would also come into play, as the

NCAA would not allow for male athletes to be paid more that female athletes. Even though the

revenue difference between men’s and women’s sports is significant, having to pay them all the

same amount of salary would make it impossible for the NCAA to accomplish. These reasons,

along with many others, are why it would make sense for the NCAA to pay its student athletes.

Reference Page:

2015 NCAA tournament has highest average viewership in 22 years. (2015, April 7). Retrieved

December 4, 2015, from http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2015-04-07/2015-ncaa-

tournament-has-highest-average-viewership-22-years

Paying College Athletes 7

Berkowitz, Steve. (March, 2015). NCAA nearly topped $1 billion in revenue in 2014. Retrieved

November 25th, 2015, from

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/03/11/ncaa-financial-statement-

2014-1-billion-revenue/70161386/

Eveleth, R. (2014). If Men Get Paid To Play College Sports, Title IX says Women Do, Too.

Retrieved from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/if-men-win-pay-play-

rights-female-athletes-will-have-get-paid-too-180950338/?no-ist

Investing where it Matters. (2014). Retrieved November 23, 2015, from

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/investing-where-it-matters

Ireland, C. (2013, May 8). Paying NCAA athletes: Con. Retrieved November 25, 2015, from

http://www2.palomar.edu/telescope/2013/05/08/college-athletes-con/

Solomon, J. (2014). If football, men’s basketball players get paid, what about women? Retrieved

from http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24581041/if-football-

mens-basketball-players-get-paid-what-about-women

Student Athlete Benefits. (2015). Retrieved December 4, 2015, from

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/finances/student-athlete-benefits

Paying College Athletes 8

Top NCAA School Revenues 2014. (2014). Retrieved November 25, 2015, from

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Voepel, M. (2011). Title IX a pay-for-play roadblock. Retrieved from

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6769337/title-ix-seen-substantial-roadblock-

pay-play-college-athletics

What’s the price tag for a college education? (2015). Retrieved December, 2015, from

http://www.collegedata.com/cs/content/content_payarticle_tmpl.jhtml?articleId=10064