1

Matt Allaire
Professor Birren
SPM 373-601
November 2, 2015
Paying Student Athletes
The NCAA, and division one college athletics is a multibillion-dollar industry.
This is thanks to television contracts, endorsement deals, etc. The NCAAs biggest
moneymakers are mens basketball and football. More specifically, bowl games in
football, and the NCAA Tournament, or March Madness in mens basketball. For the
NCAA, March Madness is its most profitable business, earning roughly $900 million in
revenue, most of which comes from the broadcast rights paid by CBS (CBS), parent of
CBSNews.com, and Time Warner (TWX). The media companies signed a 14-year, $10.8
billon deal in 2006 (Berr, 2015). The largest reason why college athletics is as large of
an industry as it is today is the big name student athletes that attract all of this attention.
Many of these top-tier student athletes are basically treated the same way as professional
athletes. The difference between student athletes and professionals is that student athletes
are expected to do basically the same thing as pros, but also have to attend and do well in
their classes. On top of this they do it all without a salary pay. This is why the dilemma
if student athletes should be paid or not is one of the most, if not the most controversial
issues in the field of sport, and sport law today. Both sides of this debate have very
compelling arguments. Even though I do agree it must be very stressful and timeconsuming being a student athlete, I do not believe that student athletes should be paid on
a basis of many reasons.

2
As previously stated, most of the money being made by the NCAA are through
the football and basketball programs. This is due to the large television contracts that are
received by the major conferences. Since these two sports are the ones making most of
the money for their respective universities people argue that only athletes that participate
in these sports should be paid. If this were true then the schools would be in violation of
Title IX. Title IX: prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and
activities in federally funded schools at all levels. If any part of a school district or
college receives any Federal funds for any purpose, all of the operations of the district or
college are covered by Title IX. The essence of Title IX is that an institution may not
exclude, separate, deny benefits to, or otherwise treat differently any person on the basis
of sex unless expressly authorized to do so under Title IX or the Department's
implementing regulations (Office for Civil Rights, 2015). So by paying these athletes
for the colleges money making programs, Title IX would also force colleges to pay all
other sport programs, mens and womens. For example, if colleges were to pay football
players $50,000 a season they must also pay womans swimming and diving teams, the
same goes for field hockey players as well, etc. This is because they are both student
athletes and do similar jobs. No matter if someone plays football or field hockey, both
put a large amount of their time into practicing, training for, and playing their sport and
deserve to be treated equally. There are just too many controversies with paying student
athletes and still abiding by Title IX. Because of this there are bound to be lawsuits based
on the grounds of Title IX.
More controversy associated with paying student athletes is, how would the pay
vary? or would it vary at all? From sport to sport, big time players to walk on players,

3
school to school, or men to women athletes, how would the pay differ and would it be
fair? This is just another one of the many question marks that would have to be answered
if student athletes were to be paid.
Another reason I do not believe that student athletes should be paid is due to the
fact that they are student athletes. The main reason they are at school is to be students
and receive an education, playing their respective sport comes second. If student athletes
were to be paid this would take away from the learning experience. The student would be
more focused on playing their sport and getting paid rather than receiving their education.
People argue that student athletes already view college athletics this way, due to the one
and done players. The thing is that there are not many one and done players out there,
these are just the top maybe 15 players in the nation. What paying student athletes would
do is give everyone that sort of one and done mindset, saying basically college is not
about the education first anymore; its more about getting paid. When you look at it
students are already, in a way getting paid to play their sport if they are good enough, by
receiving scholarships. They receive one of the most valuable and expensive things
someone will pay for in their life (a college education) for free. Many people spend most
of their lives paying off their student loans that they received in order to go to school.
Not to mention they also get to travel, get free apparel, and play the sport that they love.
The student athletes that argue for pay have to realize the value of the education and
experience they are getting for free, and the luxury that they have.
Amateur competition is a bedrock principle of college athletics and the NCAA.
Maintaining amateurism is crucial to preserving an academic environment in which
acquiring a quality education is the first priority. In the collegiate model of sports, the

4
young men and women competing on the field or court are students first, athletes second
(Amateurism, 2013). The NCAA is based on amateur competition, and paying athletes
for play would diminish this quality of amateurism. Without amateurism the NCAA
would become a professional league because they would be paying players a salary. With
this many other problems would arise such as paying players workers compensation if
they become injured, pay insurance, set a salary minimum, etc. The NCAA would
basically turn into a sort of minor league type of league similar to the NBA Development
League.
Another problem with paying student athletes that would arise, would be the issue
of where would the money to pay these athletes come from? Even though college
athletics is a multibillion-dollar industry as previously stated, a very small amount of
athletic departments actually generate profit. A total of 20 athletics programs in the
FBS reported positive net revenues for the 2013 fiscal year Only two sports were
profitable at FBS schools, according to the report. Football programs netted a median
profit of slightly more than $3 million and mens basketball netted a median $340,000.
But the profits at most schools quickly vanished after paying for a long list of other
intercollegiate teams, all of which lose money. The median loss among of athletic
departments was $11.6 million (Madsen, 2014). If athletes were to be paid most athletic
departments clearly do not have the funds to do so. If colleges were to be paying athletes
of every sport that the college offers, this would put basically all smaller or not high-end
athletic programs in debt. Also due to the fact that only select universities have the
money to spend this may create an unfair playing field, because top athletes will probably
choose to go to the universities that would be able to pay them more money. With a

5
larger gap between the good teams and bad teams, the collegiate game would become
diminished.
I do believe there is a compromising alternative to paying college athletes. This
would be to simply make it possible for high school athletes to forgo college in total and
go straight to professional leagues if they desire. This method was used for many years
in the NBA, but due to the new collective bargaining agreement is no longer in place.
Now you must be 19 years old and must be at least one year removed from high school to
enter the NBA Draft. In the NFL you must be at least three years removed from high
school to enter the NFL Draft. Many of these top recruited players already do the one
and done method or leave school once they are able to, and do not get a sufficient
education anyway. Why not give them the option to go straight to the pros if they want to
get paid right away. Also this would take the argument people have that what if they get
injured in college and nullify it.
All in all, it would be hard complying with the various laws and would bring
many questions and controversies about. But nonetheless, athletes being paid may be
something seen in the near future. At Northwestern University they already have
attempted to put a union in place, and many other things have been done in attempt to
make progress to eventually pay student athletes. In my opinion paying student athletes
should not happen and would be a mistake due to the reasons stated above. Maybe
instead of straight up paying student athletes the NCAA could look for a happy medium,
by satisfying the athletes and also keeping the system they have in place.

6
Bibliography
Amateurism. (2013, November 25). Retrieved December 7, 2015,
from: http://www.ncaa.org/amateurism
Berr, Jonathan. (2015, March 20) March Madness: Follow the
money. Retrieved December 7, 2015, from cbsnews website:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/march-madness-follow-the-money/
Madsen, N. (2014, December 22). Jim Moran says only 20
colleges make a profit from sports. Retrieved December 7, 2015, from
politifact website: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/dec/22/jimmoran/moran-says-only-20-colleges-make-profit-sports/
Office for Civil Rights, (. (2015). Title IX Resource Guide. Office
For Civil Rights, US Department Of Education,
Spengler, J. (2009). Introduction to sport law, Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.