Compensating college athletes: weighing financial and ethical considerations

Introduction
One of the big questions facing universities in America today is whether college athletes should be compensated for playing a sport. It has become a controversial question because college athletics themselves have become a big business, with big colleges bringing in billions of dollars each year thanks to TV deals, merchandise sales, and ticket sales to all the big games (Edelman, 2013). Yet student-athletes see none of this revenue, even though the colleges benefit financially from their activity on the field. This paper will discuss the pros and cons of the issue and show why in the greater scheme of things everyone would be better served if the money was taken out of sports completely and colleges focused more on education rather than on TV deals and ticket sales. Pros of Compensating College Athletes to Play a Sport But before that point can be made, let’s consider the pros of paying college athletes. First off, it would benefit the student financially (Piccioto, 2019). Student-athletes basically act like full-time pro athletes anyway. They cannot have jobs because all their free time (when not in school) has to be spent in the field or in the gym getting in their conditioning. Staying conditioned is their job as student-athletes. True, if they are there on scholarship then they are technically being paid. However, if they are great college athletes, like Zion Williamson, they could be making millions in endorsement deals while still in school—or their school could be giving them a cut of the ticket sales since fans are coming to see them play.
Another pro is that it would increase and improve the fiscal policy of the schools. Instead of obliging college athletes to go poor and risk them breaking the rules to get some money from shoe companies, colleges could pay their athletes and promote fiscal responsibility (Smith, 2011). It would provide these student-athletes with a source of income since they have no other alternatives (it is not as though they can get full-time jobs—they have no time as student-athletes for anything other than athletics).
Finally, paying student-athletes would help to prevent all the corruption and scandals that go on behind the scenes. College athletes have enough to worry about with training, preparing for the possibility of going pro, keeping their health, studying for classes, and maintaining healthy relationships with their peers. The last thing they need is the added pressure of having to avoid the many traps that are set for them by unscrupulous managers and coaches, recruiters and so on. Some college athletes accept bribes to go play at this or that school because they know they have no other recourse to receive cash, and since sports are all they know they give in to the temptation even though it is against the rules and could see them kicked out of school, their future destroyed. Paying them legally would eliminate much of that risk and it would be a fair trade: the students provide the school with athletic services, and they receive remuneration in return. Cons of Compensating College Athletes to Play a Sport There are cons to consider, however. For instance, the number of big-time college athletes is few are far between when one gets right down to it. Many more are the average amateur athletes who will never go pro and never make it in the big leagues. By paying athletes, it could bring about a situation of unfair compensation between players. On one team there could be a star player raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars, while others make barely anything because they have not branded themselves into stars in the media. Thus, instead of players coming together as a team, it would create an environment of jealousy and tension as the players end up resenting one another because one gets paid more than another. Teams are supposed to be united in their quest for victories, not divided by their own self-interests. If college athletics cannot teach players to come together as a team because money is involved, money should probably not be involved at all.
Another con is that paying athletes puts a burden on smaller schools because they will never be able to pay the best athletes to come play on their courts or on their fields. The big schools will attract the top talent just like the big cities attract the top talent in the pro game. It would mean less opportunity for small schools to compete at the national level, and less revenue for them overall as they quickly find themselves unable to make the kind of TV deals they could make at one time. Players will be focusing more on money than on studies, and the entire system can become undermined as a result of money introduced into the game in this way. College athletes should be recognized for what they are first and foremost: students (Edelman, 2013). So maybe the focus should be on academics? Solution: Give the Money to All Students, not Just Athletes! The reality is that money corrupts everything it touches. Colleges used to be places of learning and academic achievement. Now they are money machines, like LSU, recently implicated in the college admissions scandal, where so many wealthy parents were bribing LSU administrators and coaches to get their kids into the college. Athletes want to be paid to play, and the education being received is not even on anyone’s top list of priorities. Young adults are going to these schools to have fun, party, play games, go to games, and indulge. There is no emphasis on learning.
The question should not be whether or not student-athletes should be paid: the question should be, why are we going to school in the first place? If it is to become pro athletes, maybe the charade of pretending to be students should be dropped. Maybe colleges should be obliged to donate all their earnings from lucrative TV deals and ticket sales to some good cause—like more scholarships for the underprivileged.
When colleges can make billions off ticket sales and TV deals, their focus is not going to be on academics because school at that point becomes a big business. It sends the wrong message to its students and the student-athletes end up wanting a cut of the pie. They forget all about being students. They forget that they are really there to learn—not to be giants on the field.
The money should be taken out of schools—not given to student-athletes. It should be given to all students so that they can all have a chance to earn degrees and improve their futures. Too much emphasis is placed on athletics and money. More attention should be placed on the schools actually using that money they earn for a better cause. Conclusion In the great debate over whether student-athletes should be paid, the better question is: Why can’t we just focus on academics and quit throwing so much money at sports? If more money were put to use to give people an actual education, the nation would be better off as a whole. Instead of athletes and colleges thinking about themselves, maybe they should be thinking instead of the common good of all.

References Edelman , Marc. “Should NCAA Athletes Be Paid?” U.S. News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, (4 Apr. 2014), https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-ncaa-athletes-be-paid Piccioto, E. D. (2019, March 12). Should College Athletes Get Paid? The Perspective. Retrieved from https://www.theperspective.com/debates/sports/college-athletes-get-paid/ Smith, R. A. (2011). Pay for Play?: A History of Big-Time College Athletic Reform. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.