Paying College Athletes? That's Just Wrong

The issue... any why the $0 is much better than it seems

In case you have not been following, the big-time business of college sports is just getting bigger and bigger. You thought the numbers were outrageous before? Last month, ESPN signed a $5.6 million deal over 12 years for the rights to televise the first college football championship playoff, a new system put in place to achieve a clearer champion and, of course, more money.¹ In 2011, CBS shoveled over $10.8 billion to the NCAA to ensure that every game of the NCAA men’s basketball championship tournament from 2011 until 2024 will be televised on their network.² With the money from these astronomical television deals, the NCAA is bringing in nearly $850 million in revenue per year, at least as of 2010-11.³ Because of these ludicrous deals and high income for the NCAA, more and more people are stepping out to proclaim that this system is not fair and needs to be fixed. They declare that a business model such as the NCAA, which brings in so much money yet does not share ANY of it with the athletes who are the core source of that revenue, is unethical and unjust. However, as much as these advocates believe they are supporting not only justice but the athletes’ best interest when calling for a pay-for-play system, they are wrong. Scholarships, unfair advantages, and logistics all demonstrate why paying student athletes would not only be a great injustice, but also a huge mistake…

When first looking into this issue, it is easiest and probably most common to side with the athletes who are breaking their backs to meet the rigorous demands of playing a Division I college sport, yet are seeing any monetary rewards for their work swallowed by their schools and the NCAA. Still, a closer look always pays a clearer picture.

For every athlete demanding a paycheck, there are 10 deserving
non-athletes who can't afford to walk in the door,
or who are departing college with
“a five-figure yoke around [their] neck.”

First and foremost, while these athletes do not receive compensation in the form of weekly stipends, they do receive one major reward that, especially today, is becoming more valuable than any amount of paychecks: a college scholarship. Many of these Division I athletes are attending school on a full scholarship, meaning they will not need to pay for any tuition, housing, books, or related costs. A college degree, fully funded by playing hours upon hours of the sport they love. That is such a tremendous opportunity for so many people and is seriously overlooked by people who claim the athletes are not fairly compensated. Receiving a college degree today is nearly invaluable, not only in the literal sense where some students and their families have to pay over $50,000 a year for education, even at public universities,⁴ but also because “those [who receive] bachelor’s degrees earn an average of nearly $1 million more over their lifetimes than those with only high school diplomas.”⁵ Countless numbers of people would go to extreme lengths for the privilege of attending college and receiving a college education, but never get the opportunity. Many students, in fact, fulfill “whatever means necessary” to help them obtain their degree, often times incurring humongous debts from student loans and departing college with “a five-figure yoke around [their] neck.”⁶ The incalculable worth of a college experience is thus the ultimate compensation for student athletes, especially when they get to attend for free and leave with no debt and are awarded with career plans for life after sports. Anyone asking for anything more is just greedy.

The next strongest argument against paying college athletes is that there is no fair or intelligent method to actually pay the players. Not only does this task present a logistical nightmare, but some are in line to be left out of the pot to receive pay for their play, causing an unfair advantage for some athletes. Many questions arise from these issues. How would the money be distributed? Are all players paid the same flat income, or is pay based on performance? Is the star of the team paid the same amount as the bench warmer? It seems it would be unfair to pay two athletes who work just as hard different amounts, but on the other hand why pay someone who does not play.⁶ Another major question revolves around whether or not every sport would enact a pay-for-play system. The only true revenue-generating sports are big-time football and men’s basketball programs, and just because they produce revenue does not mean they are profitable. Does that mean that the swimmers, soccer players, rowers, track stars, and everyone else would still work the same demanding, overwhelming hours, yet not receive the paychecks that the football and basketball players do? ⁶ Paying some athletes but not others is definitely injustice.

To pay? Or not to pay?

And how would the NCAA even expect the schools to afford paying their athletes. Not every school is a Michigan, Texas, or Florida: out of 125 Division 1 programs, 22 are cash flow even or cash flow positive. ⁷ Forcing schools to pay student athletes in this situation would only further fracture an already broken business model. Diverting money from the non-revenue sports, which consists of pretty much every sport besides basketball and football, in order to pay the athletes who help bring in money would not leave enough money to operate these non-revenue sports, causing an eventual elimination of all other sports and an enormous injustice to thousands of athletes across the country.⁶ Furthermore, the 22 programs that would be able to afford to pay their athletes and maintain their athletic programs would come to absolutely dominate college athletics, attracting the best recruits thanks to being able promise players pay for their play, and actually fielding a full athletics program. Any way you cut it, enacting a pay-for-play system in college sports would only create injustice by awarding an advantage to a small few, a prospect which would anger many justice theorists and none more than Jeremy Bentham.  

Jeremy Bentham was a justice theorist who is credited with creating modern utilitarianism and lived his life based on the principle that justice was determined by finding the “greatest good for the greatest amount of people.”⁸ And question of justice could be answered by seeing with decision yielded the most happiness. Like many of his fellow justice theorists, Bentham believed that the benefits of the few should not outweigh, or be taken before, the more spread out benefits of the many. It is thus easy to see where Bentham would have swayed on the issue of paying college athletes. In a pay for play system, basketball and football players would no doubt enjoy the monetary compensation they receive. However, this would come at a cost to countless others, from other student athletes who work as hard as these players but are not paid and whose non-revenue sports are threatened by the lack of money available, to the athletic programs who have to pay these athletes, to the fellow students who not only have to pay to attend school but now have to watch as some of those who get to come for free now get paychecks in addition, to… the list goes on and on. The happiness of the few, salaried student athletes is far outweighed by the overall displeasure of, well, just about everyone else, making a pay-for-play system in college athletics clearly unjust.

Justice most often demands a solution that produces not only a moral and ethical conclusion, but that also creates the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, as Jeremy Bentham so strongly believes. In the issue of whether or not college athletes should be paid to play college sports, this concept of justice clearly calls for not paying the student athletes. Paying these athletes would garner a great happiness from the players who did receive payment; however, a great majority of college athletes would find themselves at an unfair disadvantage, working just as hard but not getting paid. The transfer of funds to the pockets of the players would also jeopardize the futures of the non-revenue sports, which would have trouble competing for dollars, as well as giving these athletes another reward in addition to the already invaluable college education they receive for free.

College sports is supposed to be about passion, faith, and loyalty.. not money.

Paying college athletes is a very bad idea. It is unethical, unjust, hurts more people than it helps, and threatens all that we know and love about college sports today with a threat to become professional. Justice is better served by maintaining the status quo, where no athletes receive any monetary compensation but compete for faith, passion, and loyalty. The current system gives each athlete an equal chance to succeed and does not give any unfair advantages. You think paying college athletes is a good idea? That’s just wrong. 

Carl Scheller

[1] Bachman, Rachel. “College Football's Big-Money, Big-Risk Business Model.” The Wall Street Journal. online.wsj.com, n.d. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

[2] Wilbon, Michael. "College athletes deserve to be paid." ESPN. espn.go.com, n.d. Web. 18 July 2011.

[3] "NCAA revenue breakdown: 2010-11." NCAA. ncaa.org, n.d. Web.

[4] "Cost of Attendance." University of Michigan Office of Financial Aid. finaid.umich.edu, n.d. Web.

[5] Strauss, Valerie. "The value of a college degree vs. the debt it takes to earn It." The Washington Post. washingtonpost.com, n.d. Web. 1 November 2012

[6] Johnson, Dennis A. “Point/Counterpoint: Paying College Athletes.” United States Sports Academy. Thesportjournal.com, n.d. Web.

[7] Keteyian, Armen. “Has college football become a campus commodity?” CBS News: 60 Minutes. cbsnews.com, n.d. Web. 18 November 2012

[8] Bentham, Jeremy. "An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation." Library Of Economics and Liberty. econlib.org, n.d. Web.