Running Head: PAYMENT OF COLLEGE ATHLETES 1

Payment of College Athletes

Aminah Aiken

Arizona State University

PAYMENT OF COLLEGE ATHLETES 2

Abstract

This paper is a collection of research on the topic of compensation for college athletes. There are

six annotated bibliographies from the side in favor of and against payment of student athletes

outside of the full scholarships they receive. Arguments in favor of payment of student athletes

include scholarship gaps, broadcasting revenue and time devoted to sports. Arguments against

payment of athletes include being students before athletes, increased income due to acquiring a

college degree and issues that arise in regards which athletes are paid and the amount they would

be paid. The annotated bibliographies are then followed by and investigative essay that poses

multiple questions from both sides and is wrapped up in a final conclusion.

Keywords: National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), college athlete,

compensation
PAYMENT OF COLLEGE ATHLETES 3

Payment of College Athletes

Section 1, Introduction

The topic of this research is based on the question of whether or not college athletes

should be paid. I feel that this is an important topic as an avid watcher of college sports and a

friend of athletes on Arizona State sports team. I feel this topic is especially relevant in the midst

of the March Madness basketball tournament, where college basketball players have their games

broadcast and bet on world wide. Seeing players on such a large raises the question, Shouldn’t

these athletes be getting paid? The research I have conducted looks at this question from multiple

aspects of both sides of the argument.

Section 2, Annotated Bibliography

Edelman, M. (2015, January 06). 21 Reasons Why Student-Athletes Are Employees And Should

Be Allowed To Unionize. Retrieved March 17, 2019, from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2014/01/30/21-reasons-why-student-athletes-are-

employees-and-should-be-allowed-to-unionize/#39573f468d05 (Links to an external site.)Links

to an external site.

In 21 Reasons Why Student-Athletes Are Employees And Should Be Allowed To

Unionize, Marc Edleman lists 21 reasons he feels that college athletes, specifically men’s

football and basketball players playing at Division I schools , should be allowed to receive

compensation. Among those reasons are the amount the schools make compared to major sports

corporations, the amount of money that college coaches are paid, and the marketing that the

athletes do that gets more people to attend the colleges they play for. He sheds light on the fact

that many Division I schools are making more money than a combination of teams in the
PAYMENT OF COLLEGE ATHLETES 4

National Basketball Association (NBA) or the National Hockey League (NHL). He also points

out that in 40 of the 50 United States, the highest paid person is the coach of the football or

basketball coach at the state university.

This article was an easy read because of the way that it was formatted, but the

information in the article is very repetitive. Almost half of the reasons stated in the article are the

same and could have been stated in a shorter sentence or paragraph. His reasons seem to be very

one-sided and do not have enough variety in information to effectively back his argument. Being

that this article is from Forbes, it is allowed to be mostly opinion based and does not have to

have information that is one hundred percent correct.

Although it is clear which side the author of this article is on, it does not have enough

effective evidence to be useful for me. This article is mainly opinion based with a few statistics

that have no direction leading to a possible solution to the issue of whether or not college athletes

should be paid.

“14. In 40 of the 50 U.S. states, the highest paid public official is currently the head coach of a

state university’s football or men’s basketball team.”

“19. Of course, there are many colleges that use their athletes as core marketers of the

university. If not for college basketball players, think about how much more money Gonzaga

University would need to spend on building name recognition to prospective students not located

on the West Coast.”

PAYMENT OF COLLEGE ATHLETES 5

Gerrie, W. (2018). More than Just the Game: How Colleges and the NCAA are Violating their

Student-Athletes’ Rights of Publicity. Texas Review of Entertainment & Sports Law, 18(2), 111–

130. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=1327800

85&site=ehost-live (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

In More Than Just the Game, Wes Gerrie (2018) starts by talking about the use of athlete

images in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). He explains how much money

is generated from using their images during large events such as March Madness. He gives the

example of Jahlil Okafor who played for Duke University on the men’s basketball team during

the 2014-2015 season. That year, Duke’s men’s basketball team brought in $27,000,243. Jahlil’s

image accounted for 2,605,405, which was about ten percent of the total, but was not able to

receive any money due to the compensation rules of the NCAA. Gerrie argues that athletes not

being able to receive compensation for their likenesses is a violation of the Right of Publicity,

which he explains later in the article. Gerrie tells about the original purpose for the NCAA and

how they have made changes to be the corporation they are now. It is revealed that the NCAA

makes about $989 million in revenue and $665 million in net assets and only about 31% of that

goes towards the support of student athletes, including scholarships. With that, we get a view of

what it is like to be a college athlete. He goes on to explain that athletes spend 43.3 hours per

week on athletics. The summer vacations they get are only 10 days and most of their off season

is spent doing activities related to their sport. The rest of the article is devoted to explaining what

the Right of Publicity is and a few court cases with the NCAA about possible violations to the

Right of Publicity with no avail on the opposing side.

PAYMENT OF COLLEGE ATHLETES 6

Although most of the article is anecdotes as opposed to having rock solid evidence of

players privacy being violated, I think this article will still help my essay with the statistics he

gives regarding money made by the NCAA and money used to support the athletes.

“In the 2014 fiscal year alone the NCAA reported $989 million in revenue and $665 million in

net assets.430 f this massive financial windfall about $681 million came from multimedia,

marketing, and licensing, all of which use student-athletes’ likeness.44 Even more staggering is

the distribution of revenue with a mere 26% going towards scholarships and 5% to “academic

enhancement” or the academic-support of student-athletes.”

“Today, the average student-athlete spends 43.3 hours per week on athletics,57 and 37.3 hours

on academics.58 Their summer breaks are 10 days, instead of 10 weeks, and any optional

activities are effectively mandatory if they wish to keep their spot on the team.59 Roughly 70%

of NCAA athletes report spending as much time in the off-season working on sports-related

activities as they do during the season”

Johnson, D. A., & Acquaviva, J. (2012). Point/Counterpoint: Paying College Athletes. Sport

Journal, 15, 1. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=1292857

24&site=ehost-live (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

In this article, Point/Counterpoint: Paying College Athletes, Dr. John Acquaviva makes

the argument that student athletes should not be paid beyond the scholarships and publicity they

receive for playing college sports. He introduces his five points for the reasons they should not

be paid including the claim that “education is money”, which is the idea that athletes will earn
PAYMENT OF COLLEGE ATHLETES 7

more money with the degree they earn after they graduate, and the issue of how the athletes

should be paid (i.e. will they be paid on performance and what will happen if the athlete does not

get a chance to play). On the other hand, Dr. Dennis Johnson argues for the payment of athletes.

His arguments include the fact that most athletes do not get the time they need to focus on school

and that their “full ride scholarship” has an almost $3,000 gap that is unaccounted for.

This article is very well rounded and each author provides excellent points for and against

the topic of paying athletes. Instead of portraying only one side of the argument and attacking the

opposition, this article gives the full spectrum of the argument, which I believe makes this a

more credible source. This paper is also a peer reviewed academic journal which adds to the

credibility of the information and the authors.

This article has helped to give me a better look at both sides of the argument with great stories

and statistics.

“For example, how much should the athletes get paid and will payments be based on

performance? What if the athlete gets hurt? What if the athlete is a bust and despite remaining on

the team, doesn't start or even play at all? - Issues that seem to raise far more questions than

answers. But perhaps most important - What will happen to the non-revenue sports at the

colleges who lose money from all of their sports programs - including football and basketball?” -

Dr. John Aquaviva

“Eitzen ( 12) among others ( 27) makes the analogy that the NCAA operates like the "plantation

system" of the old south. The coaches are the overseers who get work from the laborers (players)

who provide riches for the masters (universities) while receiving little for their efforts. Perhaps

slightly over-stated (obviously the athlete is not a slave, but maybe an indentured servant), the
PAYMENT OF COLLEGE ATHLETES 8

student-athlete is dominated, managed, and controlled, and they don't receive a wage

commensurate to their contribution as expressed in dollars earned by the university. Eitzen notes

that athletes are sometimes mistreated physically and mentally and are often denied the rights

and freedoms of other citizens. Ultimately, they have no real democratic recourse in an unjust

system.” - Dr. Dennis Johnson

Martinez, M. (2017, March 20). Should College Student-Athletes Be Paid? Both Sides of the

Debate. Retrieved March 17, 2019, from https://www.collegexpress.com/articles-and-

advice/athletics/blog/should-college-student-athletes-be-paid-both-sides-debate/ (Links to an

external site.)Links to an external site.

Madisen Martinez showcases a brief insight into the debate of paying student athletes in

her article Should College Student-Athletes Be Paid? The article is short and sweet only picking

a couple of key points from each side. A point in favor of the argument to pay student athletes

that she brings in from another article, which is one that I have used for my research, is the fact

that student athletes miss school to play in championship games and tournaments. These outside

events bring in a lot of money not only for the schools, including increased enrollment after

winning, but for the NCAA who profits on views of these games. A point she brings in the

argument against student athlete payment is that providing payment would change the meaning

behind college sports. The commitment to a university would be based on how much money is

being offered and would entice athletes to transfer schools if a higher offer is made somewhere

else.

Madisen Martinez brings in some good points from other articles on the issue, but none

of the arguments are in depth or based on hard facts. Many of the arguments gathered from other
PAYMENT OF COLLEGE ATHLETES 9

articles seem to need more proof to back up the claims that are being made. However, her

viewpoint is not made clear, which is a positive because it shows that her article is unbiased and

was simply written to provide insight into both sides of the argument, as her title said.

Although some of the points that she brought in were very good and it doesn’t appear that she

has taken a side, I feel that most of her information I could get from the other articles she pulled

from, possibly with more proof and statistics that could back up those ideas. Her article seems to

be just snippets of other peoples’ articles as opposed to creating concrete arguments for both

sides.

“Not only do they miss class, but they are absent for nationally televised games that make a lot

of money and receive millions of viewers, according to Marc Edelman in his article “21 Reasons

Why Student-Athletes Are Employees and Should Be Allowed to Unionize.””

“If payments were involved, athletes would be incentivized to commit to the college or

university with the highest offer. The next year, they may transfer to another school with an even

higher offer. Before you know it, these college sports would be 100% a business.”

Nocera, J., Shwarz, A., Brennan, C., & Elmore, L. (2017, October 24). Should College Athletes

Be Paid [Audio blog post]. Retrieved March 17, 2019.

This source is a podcast debate with Joe Nocera and Andy Shwarz in favor of the motion

to pay college athletes and Christine Brennen and Len Elmore against the motion. A few of the

issues that were brought up in this debate were the fact the the athletes were recruited for one

reason, which is to play sports and make money for the school which is why they should be paid

(a statement from Joe Nocera). Another issue that was brought up that paying college athletes
PAYMENT OF COLLEGE ATHLETES
10
would ruin athletes chances of getting an education because they would just being going to play

to get paid, which is an argument brought up but both Christine Brennen and Len Elmore.

Another topic discussed was the idea that universities that don’t have as great of a name in sports

would not be able to pay their athletes as much as some of the Division I schools would be able

to.

A couple factors that make this a great source are that they had two people who would be

considered experts in the field of sports, Len Elmore who is a former basketball player and

Christine Brennen who is a sports columnist, and the fact that it is a debate. Each side gets to

share their opinions and statistics on the same topics and gets to hear what the opposing side

thinks about the same issues. At some points it seems more like an argument back and forth

instead of a debate, but it shows how passionate they are about their sides as well as being open

to hear what the other side has to say. Another reason this is a solid source is that they talk about

paying women’s teams as well as men’s and also paying teams that are not just football or

basketball.

I think this source would be helpful especially with the discussion on paying women’s

athletes and paying other sports that are not as major. I feel that this debate takes a deeper dive

into discussing how athletes should be paid and how schools would pay all athletes instead of

just the top teams.

Sanderson, A. R., & Siegfried, J. J. (2015). The case for paying college athletes. The Journal of

Economic Perspectives, 29(1), 115-138.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1257/jep.29.1.115
PAYMENT OF COLLEGE ATHLETES
11
In this article, The Case for Paying College Athletes, John Siefried and Allen Sanderson

discuss some of the disjointedness of the college athletics industry and complications that may

come with compensating college athletes. Something that is called to attention is that when

college teams lose, the money is not put into other areas that need funding, nut is instead used to

improve facilities for athletes which in turn encourages them to do better. Another aspect that is

inspected further is the NCAA setting the limits on how much college athletes can be

compensated. This is one of the only arenas where an outside source controls what happens to

individuals no matter the state. In this article, the NBA and the National Football League (NFL)

have been shown to also play a role in how college sports are played. Changing the rules so that

only college athletes are allowed to be recruited has in a way forced college athletes to focus a

majority of their time on their sport, especially if they have any hopes on making it to the

professional level.

This source adds an extra layer to look at when talking about the payment of college

athletes. This article gives an insight to how the rules have become what they are today and how

that has shaped the way that people look at college sports. There doesn’t seem to be a side taken

but seems to take a more investigative approach to the issue, looking at it from a different

perspective of how paying college athletes became a question in the first place.

I think this article will be very useful for me to be able to show the cause and effects of

how we came to discuss payment of athletes.

“ But the NCAA and its members collectively fix college athletes’ wages. Student-athletes

appear to be the only category on a campus where an outside organization (the NCAA) is granted

power to dictate compensation and hours of work.”

PAYMENT OF COLLEGE ATHLETES
12
“The National Football League (NFL) and National Basketball Association (NBA) aid and abet

in this regard by restricting new player entry into their leagues, limiting access to the NFL only

to players three years after high school graduation and entry into the NBA only to players who

have reached age 19 (a limit that soon may be raised to 20). The pool of prospective players

therefore has limited alternative ways to practice, improve, and audition for the professional

leagues other than to attend college”

Section 3, Investigative Essay

Payment of College Athletes

Sports have been a staple of college life since the early 1900s. Students dream of being

on the best college sports teams doing what they love, and once they get there, they spend so

much time working at their craft. Shouldn’t they be paid for their talents and efforts? Some say

that the full ride scholarship they receive for housing, tuition and books is enough. They get

enough fame and publicity from having their games broadcast on television world wide. They

get a chance to be recruited by some of the best professional teams in the world. Others ask the

question: Is that enough? After missing weeks worth of classes to compete in tournaments?

Practicing, training and playing to the equivalence of working a full time job in addition to

homework and classes? Having the potential to be injured and having your scholarship taken

away because of it? For some, the risks outweigh the rewards. For others, the opposite is true.

For those against paying college athletes they see that the education and the degree they

get after graduating will last them a lifetime of pay compared to the short span of time that

getting paid for athletics in college would give. They see the luxuries that students have of

networking and clubs and socialization, because after all, they are students first. Why would they
PAYMENT OF COLLEGE ATHLETES
13
need to be paid when they get to bring publicity to their school and their own fan following for

free? College athletes are not employees, they should appreciate the privilege to play a sport they

love at their dream school. If college athletes were to be paid, how would that be determined?

Would it be based performance or team rankings? What about the less popular sports? Where

would the money com from to pay ALL college athletes? The side against sees no way to pay

everyone. Paying only top athletic teams would call for cuts of other sports; and paying all

college athletes would take money away from other school programs that need the funding. It is

a virtually impossible process and there is no need for it. It would completely change the

meaning of college sports to be all about money and how much everyone is getting paid

compared to other schools and athletes.

The side in favor of paying college athletes however do not share the same thoughts.

They see the side of athletes working overtime to appease their coaches. They have every aspect

of their lives controlled, and are punished by being made to sit out when they let priorities, like

school work or classes, get in the way of practice and game time. They never have time to enjoy

the simplicity of college life because they are constantly on the road. Sometimes playing sports

in college is the only way to make something of themselves. If students are recruited from

college, some are left to drop out of college with nothing to fall back on. Looking at the salaries

of coaches and the amount of money being made by the NCAA for broadcasting college sports,

how could there not be enough to go around for the players? The majority of the money being

made is because of the names and faces that make up these sports teams. The scholarships that

college athletes receive are rarely enough to cover other school related costs, and leave a gap of

almost $3,000 a year, which means almost $12,000 worth of expenses have to be made out of

pocket. Is the education really free if there is more to pay on top of what is given?
PAYMENT OF COLLEGE ATHLETES
14
Section 4, Conclusion

The payment of college athletes has been debated for years with no real solution or end in

sight. I think the one statement that both sides can agree on is that college athletes work very

hard and have a difficult task of playing sports and going to school. Doing this research has

shown that both sides have valid points for their arguments and the passion they feel around this

issue will tip the scales in one way or another. In this case, the voice that is the loudest will be

heard. There can only be one hope: That the athletes best interests are at the hearts of the people

who make the decisions and that the athletes are the ones who will benefit the most.