Order 981520: should college athletes get paid

Why Are Collegiate Athletes Not Officially Payed

By Anthony Jackson

As I am watching college football on TV, I wonder, why it is that collegiate athletes don’t get paid by their schools to play on their teams. Athletes bring in an enormous amount of revenue for colleges throughout the year via merchandise sales (a player's name on a jersey, for example) and other commercial items for the school. Plus, they bring in a large number of fans through selling tickets which in turn fills up stadiums with eager followers, selling drinks and other vending items. College games are quite a big investment reaping even bigger bucks. College athletes bring in a lot of contribution to the board while receiving very little in return, though. Athletic scholarships aren't nearly as close to the profits the school is making off the athletes. I don't understand why colleges and universities don’t pay the athletic students a monthly allowance. The player loses out long term. I fully support the athletes receiving some of the profits that colleges make off of them and I hope to find the answer as to why they aren’t paid to play.

Many athletes have to get part times jobs to feed themselves and to pay for other necessities which their scholarships can’t afford to cover. Scholarships are mostly meant for full-time classes, textbooks, and a basic college dorm room. Some players even have families to take care. With no real funds from the school, the student will definitely have to resort to a part time job which will only put more stress on his/her studies and his/her athletic career. Working, playing a collegiate sport, going to school, and taking care of a family is an intense workload to put on a young, bright athlete. They may get burnt out and end up leaving the team or even dropping out of the school because of finances or stress.

In the past, players have had to resort to criminal activities or the acceptance of bribes from outside parties in order to make money. While these players are barely scraping by or having to resort to other means to earn a living, the schools are making a significant amount of money off of these athletes’ names and talent. What does it take for these colleges to realize that without these players, they wouldn't be making as much money as they would with them as their players? The schools should be giving and fair and give out a stipend to these students to make their lives a little easier.

Giving players an allowance would increase the team’s retention rate for players, as well. Think of the player as an investment. The school would offer the student a scholarship to play on their team. The school will dish out a big chunk of money for that student to attend for the term of their program. Now, if the student realizes that they can’t afford to be a collegiate athlete anymore and that they have to drop out in order to survive financially, the school is out of the money. The school also has to give a scholarship to someone else in order to fill the empty spot, in turn giving out another scholarship.

Some could pose the argument that if we were to pay the players, how would we make their compensation fair compared to other players and to the school? This is an easy argument to break, though, considering our government and successful companies do this daily. They determine what a good starting amount would be based on skill level and experience. The idea could also be posed that if the school begins paying its players, the players may never go to class. That’s easy, though. If the school were to take away their stipend and bench them for excessive absences in their attendance record as well as unsatisfactory grades, the students will easily straighten up their act. It’s like grounding a teenager and taking away the things they like most. That method has been used for years because it works. The board could entice students with a raise based on good conduct, grades, and effort on the team. The board could also entice the students to keep their stipend by acting appropriately in academics, morality, and physically on the field/court.

Most college’s staff, sports organizations, and other students would argue that the athletes may get free education for four years because of an athletic scholarship. If colleges start paying athletes, then the player wouldn’t be there solely to receive an education. They would have a legitimately legal job. Coupled with this idea, we can argue that if college athletes were paid, the already excessively competitive challenge of being picked up by a scout would only increase. The school would have even better and more motivated players. The athletes are assumingly grateful for their opportunity to be a famed collegiate athlete and the school appreciates their hard labor but isn’t it only fair to pay them in more than just appreciation? If we were to compare the numbers of what an athlete is worth, what they bring in each year for the school, and how much they actually get for their scholarship, we would be dumbfounded at how much they are just settling for.

I need to do some research on how these schools operate financially and how they spend the profits they earn from the sports so that I may fully understand every angle of this problem. Does it go straight back into the program to pay the staff or does it help pay for various things throughout the school? How much do the players really make for the schools and why do the school heads not mandate a stipend for the school’s biggest investments? Ultimately, I’ve concluded that these players have a unique skill set which is very valuable to them and to the school. This skill set and the effort put into their sport should be rewarded based on a fair morality. Paying athletes has several positive perspectives and arguments cementing my belief in giving players a stipend to make them more comfortable and to ensure the success in the school and on the field.