Read the debate intro and Bleacher Fan’s argument that NCAA student-athletes should not be paid.
College athletes already get paid, just look at the definition of a “full ride” – the informal term currently used for describing NCAA student-athletes payment structure. Average college tuition for 2009 is $6,585 per year. Tack on more cash for academic fees, room and board, in addition to the money needed for books and the value of a full ride increases. Student-athletes also get a meal stipend in cash, though the sum is usually nothing substantial. Other benefits exist for athletes, including free tutoring and free medical care. The numbers aren’t that big when added together, but they likely hover around $10,000 a year from school to school.
The reality of college sports (especially college football) is big, big business. Huge business. There are multi-million dollar television contracts, season-ticket packages, the gate from each home game, exclusive apparel deals (that do not include shoes… which are an entirely separate deal), and the list goes on… and on… and on. The variance between the amount of money generated per student-athlete and the roughly $10,000 each student gets to attend school (which is in the best interest of the university anyway) is large. So, despite what students are “paid,” on the record, in the form of a full ride, the “payments” still fall well short of the revenue they generate for their respective schools. It also falls short in another important way.
Normally in the business world workers are paid according to the level of risk they incur on behalf of a business. This is already a truth in the NCAA for student-athletes. However, while the “full ride” concept has existed for eons, the level of risk incurred by student-athletes has grown monumentally, especially in the last two decades. Players are stronger and faster than ever before… meaning they hit harder and more powerfully than ever before. The chances of injury – especially long-term, career-threatening injury – has increased a great deal in the last two decades. For a quick example, contemplate the rash of knee injuries seen in football in the past 20 years, a combination of bigger bodies sitting on top of knee ligaments and aggressive hitting around the legs from defenders. The risk of injury while playing college football is large and the system is not equipped to recognize that in a meaningful way.
Beyond the overt payment of a “full ride,” plenty happens below the tables at the off-campus restaurants that pepper the nation’s college towns. Consider Michigan’s “Fab Five” in the 1990s. Their story includes law suits and a lot of speculation about gifts and other illegal activity to ensure those players made the decision to play at Michigan. Former Southern Cal basketball head coach Tim Floyd recently resigned amid allegations that he actually paid recruit O.J. Mayo thousands of dollars to play basketball at USC (undoubtedly aware of the cash windfall that comes when the university’s profile is raised – even if it’s at the expense of the player). I have personally witnessed conspicuous activity while covering college sports, but was unable to uncover any evidence of explicit wrong doing. I can say, however, that it is strange to see a freshman college baseball player driving around in a paid off luxury SUV complete with video game systems and video screens. It is even more conspicuous when the player is a left-handed pitcher who stands 6-feet 5-inches and is known for a tailing 96 mile-an-hour fastball that scouts fawn over at each home game.
To formalize the much-speculated illicit payments that take place in college athletics is not realistic. But, modest increases in the already approved stipend help cover the increasing in danger for the athlete.
An important caveat – amateur players do not need to be paid according to the same pay scale that exists for professional athletes. Formalizing additional payments can prevent abuse to the overly-stringent rules governing how student-athletes are treated. Whole-scale rule changes aren’t necessary, but an understanding of the existing marketplace, and requisite adjustment in favor of the players, makes for a system that is more balanced and fair.
The question for this debate is centered squarely whether or not student-athletes should be paid, not how much a student athlete should be paid. Frankly, I have no clue how much they should be paid in addition to what they already receive. But, I know it should be something. Money for food and for school is enough to keep a player eligible, not enough to compensate them for their risk. With all the money the NCAA invests in medical care and facilities (not to mention on-site staff during games) it is logical to invest to preserve the future of the players. In fact, they are morally obligated to invest in the long-term success of the student-athlete. Otherwise, it is all too obvious that the system is designed to protect short-term assets for a limited amount of time while banking large sums of money based on a player’s success.
Schools make millions of dollars off these kids. They use them and abuse them. They make stupid rules, follow the money. The NCAA is as croocked as the day is long. Where does the money go? Call what it is. A business. Pay the kids. http://bobbygee.wordpress.com/
Of course I agree!
Really?! You’re going to use Michigan’s Fab-5, or O.J. Mayo as justification for paying college athletes?!
That’s like saying that drinking and driving should be okay, because people do it anyway.
Just because people are doing something illegal does not mean that it should be made legal!
It’s nothing like that! My point is that illegal payments are ongoing, and formalizing a moderate payments makes the illicit payments less attractive and athletes teetering on the precipice of bad behavior choose another path.
As I said in my article, I am in no way advocating huge payments. But, the truth is that these athletes are going to be tempted, and it is easier to resist temptation when their is already a better, fair offer on the table.
OHHH!
So what you’re saying is that A 17 year old kid would turn down $100,000 in cash, but under the table, IF he was offered a MUCH smaller “approved” allowance that didn’t even come CLOSE to that same value?!
Let’s see… $100,000 in cash under the table (with only a slap on the wrist if I get caught),
-OR-
$5000 ON the table, but spread out over the entire year…
Hmmmmmmm
I think that’s a hard comparison to make without evidence. I also think it’s unwise to discount basic knowledge of right and wrong. Also, $100k will be tough to hide form the NCAA and other whisteblowers. I agree that more accountability for boosters is necessary, too!
Just like it’s a hard comparison to say that they WOULD be less inclined to take the money without evidence.
My point is simply to state that a very small allowance (in comparison) will not prevent boosters from making bigger “under-the-table” offers.
It will not change the abuse of the system, and a person who REALLY understands the basic difference of right and wrong doesn’t need $10 dollars a day to make the right decision. A person who REALLY understands right vs. wrong would turn down the money in today’s environment, too.
As long as there is a system there will be abuse. As I stated in my argument, formalizing a small payment will likely mitigate the reaction of those kids who are on the fence about what to do (e.g. take the illegal money or not). Abuse will always exist, it’s impossible to weed out. To me, that’s a debate about accountability, not paying players, though.
I agree it’s for a different debate – you brought it up
!
I don’t think you realize how poor some of these athletes are. Sure, your hot shot football stars will never have to buy a drink at the bars while in college. But what about the fourth team running back that no one recognizes?
He’s the athlete most likely to benefit from a FREE college education! He’s the one that will see the MOST opportunity from getting to play college ball, because he otherwise would NOT have gotten to go to college.
He’s the 4th stringer, so he’s obviously not going pro. Instead, he could work in a low-level, minimum wage job for his entire life, OR he could play football and get a college education, which would theoretically improve his chances at a higher-paying job.
Once again, I have a hard time feeling sorry for someone who gets an advantage over other people because they play a sport. I know just as many “poor” people who don’t even get the college education because they don’t have athletic ability.
I get that they have challenges to overcome, and I don’t mean to belittle their situation. But to say that they are not getting any benefit from playing college football is insulting to those people who can’t afford to go to school and DON’T get a free-ride!