Pay to Play:

A Reasonable
Solution
By Noah Roberson

Section:
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
2. The NCAA
3. Solutions
4. Conclusion
References

Page(s):
1
2-3
3
6-8
8-10
11

Executive Summary
The NCAA is a non-profit organization creating billions of
dollars a year by the marketing of televised college football and
basketball games. The athletes that help create this revenue
demand top dollar for their hard work on the field and court, yet the
NCAA and universities across the country cannot, and should not,
afford to pay these student-athletes.
The billions of dollars the NCAA makes goes right back to the
schools through grants-in-aid and academic support. If people knew
that the money was in fact going back to the student-athletes that
help create it, while helping to support the 20 or so non-revenue
varsity sports each school funds, then the demand to pay college
players would significantly decrease. The NCAA is not hiding any
money, and they cannot afford to pay these athletes the salaries
they request.
As many scholarship athletes come from low income families,
for many, the support they receive from a full tuition scholarship is
truly not enough to support a comfortable lifestyle. As basketball
and football players make big dollars for their universities and train
over 40 hours a week, they deserve some compensation in the form
of health benefits and increased academic support, as the rate at
which revenue sports athletes graduate is at an all-time low.
1

Also, The NCAA needs to rescind its rules on players being

unable to market themselves, as big businesses can afford to pay
athletes the money they deserve for playing at a high level. Finally,
the NFL and NBA need to remove their rules concerning drafteligibility, allowing athletes to join the professional leagues out of
high school instead of using college as a minor league under the
name of an institution of higher learning.
1.1: Intro
Ever since the early 1900s, the NCAA and college universities across
the country have been benefitting off of the booming college sports industry.
The NCAA Division I football and basketball businesses are billion dollar
industries due to the revenue racked in from television and marketing
contracts. However, as millions of viewers tune in to the excitement of March
Madness and the chaotic perfection of the new college football playoff, an
argument is at the foreground of NCAA athletics, as the players we tune in to
watch claim they are undercompensated for their participation in the
industry, and that the NCAA and universities make billions of dollars off of
their skills and hard work.
1.2: Problem Statement
As stated by Shabazz Napier, the all-star guard of the 2014 national
champion UConn Huskies, We do have hungry nights that we don't have
enough money to get food in Sometimes, there's hungry nights where I'm
2

not able to eat, but I still gotta play up to my capabilities. The NCAA
recently signed a 14 year, 10.8 billion dollar contract for March Madness to
reach televisions across the world; yet, even the best of these athletes dont
see a penny of that money.1 The problem is, many do not understand that
the NCAA is a non-profit industry, and almost all of the money goes back to
the universities to support student athletes as they strive for achievement on
the field and in the classroom.
1.3: Objective
What, then, is fair compensation? The NCAA and school administrators
need to find a middle ground that supports everyone without providing
athletes with a salary. As the NCAA monopolizes and governs the industry
with its strict rules on player compensation, this situation will not improve
unless a change is made. As it would not be feasible to pay full-scholarship
athletes, something still must be done to support student-athletes who claim
their sport is a job, and that full tuition scholarships are not enough for them
to comfortably support themselves through countless hours of rugged
training.
2.1: Background
The first athletic competition between U.S. universities took place in
1852, when Harvard and Yale students met in a rowing match on Lake
Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire.3 Scholars say that even since the
beginning, the true amateurism of college sports has never existed. This
3

proves true even for the first possible example, as a railroad company
sponsored the race to raise awareness, and Harvard used a rower who
previously graduated 2 years prior in order to win. As college athletics grew
throughout the late 1800s and boomed going into the 1900s, payments for
college athletes started to become more direct, and therefore more corrupt.
The NCAA for this reason originated in 1905 and did not start to regulate
college athletics until 1950, yet no one could possibly predict the level of
popularity and economic prosperity of college sports we see today.3
2.2: The NCAA Assumes Power
After a point-shaving scandal hit the University of Kentucky, the
reigning national basketball champion and a pre-eminent basketball
program, the NCAA was able to assert added control over college sports.1
Walter Byers, NCAA executive director, moved quickly to impose penalties,
without waiting to call a full convention of NCAA schools. And thus they have
ruled with an iron fist since, benefitting from the growing economy of college
sports and diluting the money back to the schools and their programs,
instead of the athletes themselves. No one can deny the success of the
NCAA in trying to eliminate scandal and corruption, though. They pride
themselves on creating an even playing field, forcing schools to try and
persuade athletes to come to their school based on the prestige and benefits
that the school has to offer; it is not a rat race like every other institution in
todays world. As the sports of college football and basketball started to take
over the growing age of technology, the money started pouring in. And as
4

the NCAA has assumed full control by this time, they had the ultimate
decision as to where the money goes and to whom it benefits. As college
coaches salaries started to skyrocket and universities started to build million
dollar facilities with this new expansion of wealth, players started to demand
a cut of the check, and this argument still looms larger than ever today.4
2.3: NCAA Revenue
Many claim that the NCAA has billions to spend and therefore should
be forced to give athletes a share of the money. A recent study released
announced that the NCAA makes $757 million dollars a year through TV and
marketing fees.6 This same study came to the conclusion that a Louisville
basketball player, in one of the most successful basketball programs, is
worth on average $1.6 million dollars a year; they are instead compensated
with a $30,000 dollar contract in the form of a scholarship. Little do people
know though, that 96% of the NCAAs annual revenue is referred right back
to the schools.2 The other 4% is distributed across the countless employees
of the institution. Over 60% of that 96% are in the form of grants-in-aid
and student assistance for student athletes. People argue that college
athletes deserve to be paid; however, a huge percentage of those people
would change their mind if they took a couple minutes to Google exactly
where that money is going. The NCAA aspires for transparency in their
actions as a non-profit organization; however, universities and the NCAA do
an awful job of informing people of where the billions of dollars of money
made goes. As you can see in Figure 1, the distributed money is broken
5

down into different costs going towards the athletic costs of programs, and
that the athletic spending (from the money distributed by the NCAA) far
outweighs the academic spending per

student at D1

colleges. If athletes were to be paid, the

implications are that any money towards
paying them would be taken directly from this budget,
possibly from the already measly academic

side as

well.2 Another misinformed idea is that

colleges are benefitting off of their athletics.
In pure monetary terms, only 23 of the hundreds of

Figure 1: Where the money goes

universities that participate in NCAA athletics make money off of their

athletic programs. Of those 23, only 6 were determined capable of being
able to pay their basketball and football players.5

2.4: Student before Athlete

Division I schools are required to have 21 varsity sports teams.1 Of
these teams, 2 make money. If more money was demanded to be poured
6

into basketball and football, schools would start cutting other varsity sports
until there were only two sports left. Is that to say basketball and football
players have a more valuable experience
as student-athletes compared to all other
sports? As seen in Figure 2, the
graduation rates do not agree: 64% of the
whole student body graduates from
college, while 67% of student-athletes do.
Basketball graduation rates? Only 47%. The student in student-athlete

Figure 2: Graduation Lag

comes first; schools should focus on putting more money towards academic
help for these big name athletes as they struggle through 40 hour practice
weeks, not towards paying them. Advocates for pay-to-play say that a small
percentage of athletes go pro, yet schools are still making millions off of their
athletes names. Since only a small percentage go pro, should we not focus
more on helping these students graduate instead of paying them a small
dollar which, in turn, will only ruin the academic stigma of the term studentathlete?3 As said by the Knight Commission for Intercollegiate Athletics
executive director Amy Perko, Give students more time for classes and a
greater chance of completing school with a meaningful degree; it will be
beneficial for all in the end.

3.1: A Middle Ground

The NCAA works for the majority of those involved. The small
percentage it doesnt work for is the exact athletes the NCAA is exploiting. It
is fair to say student-athletes should not be paid a salary, and yet there
must be some effort to compensate them for their efforts and money-making
abilities. There are ways to maintain the amateurism of college athletics
while still better supporting those hurt by the system. Many of these gifted
basketball and football players come from low-income families, who cannot
provide the student with a dollar more than their scholarship affords.6 Should
student-athletes go hungry, then? Should they have their scholarship taken
away and be sent home with a chronic injury they cant afford to pay for
after they leave the school, yet suffered when playing for that college? The
NCAA and college administrators need to acknowledge the difficulties these
student-athletes struggle through, and give them the best support through
academic and health care support to let them succeed to the best of
their abilities, whether it be through sports or schooling. The money is there,
yet it is not accessible without demoting other sports and the overall mantra
of college athletics.1 There are ways to avoid promoting individualism
through salary by creating incentives in the form of health benefits and
academic support, providing tutors, personal advisors, and/or extended class
or study time for student-athletes.
3.2: Separating Professional Leagues from the NCAA

Programs and athletes have succeeded and grown for a long time
under the watchful eye of the NCAA. The NCAAs strictness has led to a
bolstering of education for student-athletes, while allowing schools to recruit
based on academics, athletic skill of the college, and overall culture of the
school. Why change these values that have worked for so long, especially
when the student-athletes know exactly what they are signing onto? Nobody
is forcing an athlete to go to college, and a university provides free tuition
for talented athletes in return for their services. Complimenting this idea, The
NFL and NBA should be strongly encouraged to change their drafteligibility rules, as athletes for both leagues are required or consistentlypushed towards attending college for 1-2 years.3 This creates a minor league
system in college athletics that challenges the academic status of athletic
teams, while exhausting talented athletes for every penny they are worth. If
the NCAA got the NFL and NBA to allow students to apply to the draft
straight out of high school, they would have a much stronger platform to
stand on when advocating against paying athletes, as it would be clear that
student-athletes are attending universities in order to receive an education.
3.3: Competitive Tilt
The final argument against paying college athletes comes from the
idea of a level playing field. With only 6 teams being able to afford to pay
their players, the competitive balance would become so far out of hand, it is
feared that the popularity of college football and basketball may start to
decline.5
9

Schools would shun other programs, students, and investments to start

funneling money
into 3:
offering
recruits
huge
sums
money.
As seen in
Figure
Schools
cannot
afford
to of
pay
athletes
Figure 3, this is money schools do not have. On average, Division 1
universities need millions of dollars of athletic subsidies each year to
balance their budgets for their football programs alone. Non-revenue
sports multiply this problem by costing over 10 million on average a year,
while only generating around 1 million dollars of revenue. Private donors and
the NCAA greatly help to balance these budgets; however, if this money was
then forced to be reallocated to athletes, it would be impossible to balance
the athletics budget without cutting other programs.1 As stated by The Wall
Street Journals Andrew Zimbalast, Expanding athletic costs means draining
academic budgets. You would be running a professional organization under
the title of a higher learning institution. How would that sit with tax-payers
and donors? Also, all the best recruits would stack up at the richest schools
and win consecutive championships that will only make millions of more
dollars for that specific university.4 This would create a unfavorable cycle,
pushing the skill level of previously comparable teams farther and farther
apart. The team component of sports would be destroyed, as athletes would
10

compete with each other for top dollar while replacing the will to win as a
team with the will to make the most money.
3.4: Marketing Student-Athletes
A suggestion to counteract this possibility while still allowing athletes
to make money would be to allow these athletes to commercialize
themselves. The NCAA should lighten or completely remove their rules
against students appearing in commercials, video games, advertisements,
etc. Yes, it would contribute to some of the changing values problems
mentioned above, but it would take the economic pressure off the NCAA and
collegiate institutions, allowing rich companies and businesses to provide
athletes with the compensation they demand.5 Let students hire agents, and
monitor the time and money spent between the two, but allow the agent to
market the student-athlete, as it will eliminate the need to pay studentathletes salaries while still allowing them to benefit off of their own hard
work.
4.1: Conclusion
Student athletes in football and basketball have a valid argument as to
why they should be paid, as the NCAA creates billions off of their talents
and skills, which is then funneled into programs that have no effect on them.
In the end, however, the benefits to paying athletes a salary or even a
stipend are far outweighed by the critical repercussions that would surely
follow if they were provided a salary. As countless programs are already
11

losing money due to their athletics programs, forcing schools to pay their
athletes would lead from many to all of the non-revenue making sports being
cut as college football and basketball are turned into professional minor
leagues.1 In the end, these athletes agree to be paid for their efforts in the
form of an academic scholarship, and paying these players the money they
deserve is just not feasible in our current situation. The NCAA needs to look
into providing health benefits for all athletes, alongside reconsidering the
ability of athletes to market themselves. Destroying the already fragile
amateurism of college sports would lead to a two-sport NCAA, headlined by
individualistic semi-pros who blow off their education and are just using
universities as a stepping stone towards their professional aspirations. The
NFL and NBA need to be stimulated to change their draft-eligibility rules as
mentioned above, and schools need to put more effort into helping our
athletes graduate with marketable degrees. Paying student athletes to play
has never been the answer; this will remain so in our foreseeable future.
References:
1

Karaim, R. (2014, July 11). Paying college athletes. CQ Researcher, 24, 577-600.

Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/

2

Price, T. (2003, December 5). Rising college costs. CQ Researcher, 13, 1013-1044.

Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/

3

Frederick, B. (2014, March 1). Should NCAA Athletes Be Paid? Retrieved April 11,

2015, from http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-ncaa-athletes-be-paid

12

Zimbalist, A. (n.d.). Paying College Athletes. Retrieved April 11, 2015, from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/paying-college-athletes/
5

NCAA Sports Contracts and Amateurism. (n.d.). Retrieved April 11, 2015, from

http://sportslaw.uslegal.com/sports-agents-and-contracts/ncaa-sports-contracts-andamateurism/
6

Jackson, S. (2013, September 1). The myth of parity. Retrieved April 11, 2015, from

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9666004/pay-play-answer-collegeathletics

Cover Page Picture: http://www.shermanreport.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/03/NCAA-m

Figure 1: http://cdn.gobankingrates.com/wp-content/uploads/pay-for-play-collegeathletes.png
Figure2: http://cdn.gobankingrates.com/wp-content/uploads/pay-for-play-collegeathletes.png
Figure 3:
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c//Delta_Cost_Sports_

13