Revenue generation and compensation disparities in college athletics

¶ … College Athletes Should Get Paid

There has been debate over whether college athletes should be paid. Opponents argue that paying college athletes is difficult as most collegiate sports do not actually generate revenue (Patterson). It is only football and basketball that bring in money. This, according to Patterson, raises a fundamental question: where should the money for paying college athletes come from if collegiate sports do not indeed make money? Should they be paid by their respective schools or the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)? Further, if they were to be paid, how much would they be paid, and would they be paid like professional athletes? Whereas these concerns appear genuine, they ignore the far greater benefits of paying college athletes. The recent experience of the famous NCAA basketball athlete Shabazz Napier underscores the importance of paying college athletes. The star revealed that sometimes he went hungry due to lack of money (Sherman). It is quite shameful that a star like Napier cannot afford the most basic of needs, while at the same time NCAA is paid hundreds of millions of dollars every year by CBS and other television channels in exchange for broadcasting rights. This paper explains why college athletes should be paid.

One reason, according to Patterson, why it is important for college athletes to be paid is that college athletes \'put their bodies on the line\' every time they play (paragraph 1). Instances of college athletes sustaining physical injuries during NCAA tournaments are not rare. During the 2013 NCAA tournament, for instance, Kevin Ware, a player from Louisville, suffered a serious leg injury that kept him out of the pitch for six months. Ware\'s case is just one of the many cases of NCAA athletes sustaining severe physical injuries during tournaments. In some cases, athletes even suffer paralysis, which ends their athletic career before it even starts. It is disturbing that even with the risk to physical health that comes with involvement in college games, athletes often get nothing. Exposure to the risk of physical injury is enough to warrant payment.

Student-athletes also raise considerable money for their institution. Michael Wilbon, a journalist, states that the eleven-billion dollar 2011-24 March Madness deal between Turner Sports/CBS and the NCAA changed his mind on the subject of college-athlete payment (Patterson). The contract reveals the funds the NCAA earns in just one month. March Madness represents one of America\'s most-watched sports events. Still, the revenues from the event don\'t reach the people who make it possible -- the players themselves.

If college athletes were paid, disgraceful revelations like Napier\'s would be unheard of. It is highly likely that there are many stories akin to Napier\'s out there. The experience of Napier is an indication that many athletes could be suffering in silence. They are struggling to meet basic needs such as food. There can be reduced motivation if an individual cannot meet basic needs. How can one have the commitment and morale to build his or her athletic career if putting food on the table is a problem? Games are energy-intensive activities requiring participants to be well-fed and, most importantly, properly motivated.

As stars like Napier go hungry, it is important to note that NCAA makes enough money to afford them basic needs at the least. CBS alone pays NCAA approximately $800 million annually to broadcast its tournaments (Patterson). Revenue comes from not only television contracts, but also the sale of tickets and merchandise. Yet, NCAA has stringent limitations on player compensation, an issue that has been the subject of intense criticism. Without college athletes, NCAA would certainly not generate the revenue it generates. Is it not appalling that college athletes do not share in the revenue they create for NCAA and colleges? This is exploitation as Nocera calls it in his article A way to start paying college athletes. It is exploitation and a dishonourable disregard for the contribution of college athletes. In fact, college coaches make millions every year in salaries, further showing the undervaluation of the input of college athletes to the multibillion dollar collegiate sports industry. Even though NCAA may not afford to compensate college athletes the same way professional athletes are compensated, it can offer compensation that enables college athletes to live comfortably. NCAA can even collaborate with colleges to share the burden of paying college athletes.

There is often the argument that college student athletes are already beneficiaries of scholarships and other benefits such as free accommodation and books, and as such are financially better off than most other college students. Nocera argues that a college scholarship is really not enough. This is true as there are considerable expenses associated with college sports that are not included in the scholarship such as extra dining and the purchase of suits for compulsory banquets. This challenge is particularly important as most college athletes dedicate a substantial portion of their college time to their sport, living little or no time for part-time jobs to make ends meet.

While the argument that student athletes substantially benefit from scholarships cannot be ignored altogether, it misses the bigger picture. According to Patterson, paying college athletes can be a valuable way of instilling a sense of financial awareness into them at an earlier stage. Cases of financial irresponsibility amongst professional athletes are not rare. Broke, a documentary aired by ESPN, details the financial miseries of most professional athletes. Indeed, as shown by the documentary, about 60% of NBA stars plunge into financial difficulties just five years after retirement, in large part due to poor investment decisions and lavish spending. If college athletes were paid, they would acquire valuable financial management skills at a younger age, subsequently minimising the likelihood of financial mismanagement during their professional and retirement years.

Individuals opposing paying college sportspersons contend that a number of student-athletes are already receiving benefits such as scholarships; hence, it isn\'t necessary to pay them. Although every student-athlete doesn\'t earn a scholarship, a large number of them, especially those on teams that win national championships, do (Patterson). Besides free boarding and tuition, they also typically earn stipends for meeting their basic educational necessities, such as books. They are not required to pay back these funds. A majority of other pupils receive no such benefit and leave college burdened by considerable student loan debts. Hence, compared to non-athletes, athlete students largely have an easy time at college, at least financially, which is the reason for strong opposition by some against paying student athletes.

Athletes are beginning to raise their voices as well. A Georgia University offensive lineman, Chris Brunette, who is an MBA student in his last athletic qualification year, is aware that in spite of his sound chances to play professional football, it is associated with a grave risk -- he can, at any time in the course of his career, get injured bad enough that his career comes to a permanent stand-still. He claims he can\'t be guaranteed a spot on the National Football League and to numerous student-athletes, this (college athletics) will be the only time they will have value. Hence, making the most of college sports is good for them (Gregory, 7). Upon first joining college, Brunette felt his scholarship would suffice. In his first two years, he had to establish a side business, hairdressing for five dollars in his college dorm, to pay his bills, after getting the green signal from his NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) compliance officer. Georgian football which began the season on the 5th rank in the US yields a yearly income of seventy-five million dollars (Gregory, 7).

A second argument against paying sportspersons at college is, paying them might diminish the game\'s purity. A number of college sports fans simply support college sports owing to their belief that these athletes play with greater love and passion as compared to professional athletes. Some go so far as to claim that pros don\'t give their best since they\'ve reached the top level already and wish to avoid injuries in games that aren\'t national championships (Patterson). If colleges begin paying their sportspersons, their passion and motivation to strive hard enough to progress in the game might diminish. On the contrary, this argument doesn\'t hold any water because, if athletes are being paid, then it would be more of a motivation for athletes than an element that diminishes the purity of games. In addition, paying athletes, with the case of Napier in mind, would afford athletes more time to commit to the game thus purifying the game through expertise and practice.

Critics also argue that it is almost infeasible to pay each and every student-athlete. There are numerous reasons identified for this. First, Jeffrey Dorfman asserts that only some college-level sports are actually money-makers (e.g., college football and basketball). A majority of other sports are, in reality, strapped for cash (Patterson). Thus, the issue boils down to: do we only pay college footballers and basketball players? Would this be fair to those playing other sports? Moreover, who should fund this payment? Is the college responsible for paying its sportspersons or should its responsibility fall to the NCAA? Lastly, precisely how much and how often ought colleges to pay them? Should the program work similar to a professional contract? The above questions demonstrate the difficulties linked to changing the college sports system for compensating student-athletes. This argument is simply misplaced because, the returns generated through college athletics are, based on available data (Patterson), way above the total pay for athletes.

Player payment is associated with certain risks. Schools with more money can draw to themselves the cream of the college-age athletes, disturbing the competitive balance. Fans and alumni may be deterred by a more professionalized sport. Further, paying sportspersons could mock education further. For instance, as of now, a number of athletes accumulate in easy majors for remaining eligible for their respective sport. If they earn at college, education would completely lose its value in their eyes. Big-12 conference commissioner, Bob Bowlsby, states nobody wishes to forge an employer-employee relationship with students, as it is, first and foremost, the educational sector (Gregory, 6).

While this argument might hold some water, this is frequently not the case. Options and solutions are available to mitigate the risks that might arise due to paying athletes, just as any other payment system. Oklahoma\'s Big-12 schools depict a federal footballer graduation rate of 38%. These rates consider transfers and drop-outs for joining professional sports as non-graduates. By contrast, a more generous rate, \"graduation success\" is adopted by the NCAA. For Oklahoma state footballers, it is 47%. Oklahoma\'s overall student body federal rate is 65% (Gregory, 6). However, some schools alter the real meaning of graduation: for instance, the North Carolina University provided bogus classes for both non-athletes and athletes and altered grades. College athletics has already lost part of its purity and paying athletes might not do much further damage. The games, at the top level, represent mass entertainment.