Today, with the ever-increasing presence and influence of social media, the NCAA is faced with the question of whether or not it should pay college athletes. The current ruling on this issue is that the NCAA does not allow players to be paid or sponsored because they would lose their amateur rankings, and paying athletes would jeopardize the integrity and equality of the NCAA.
The NCAA business, synonymous with entertainment because of its large fan base, is a multi-million dollar machine, raking in thousands of dollars from each event.
For this reason, many criticize the NCAA for not paying athletes who bring in so much money from fans. Contrary to many popular beliefs, I believe that paying college athletes would be both detrimental to the games we love and financially unfair.
Collegiate sports provide a realistic and ideal opportunity for promising athletes to pursue their athletic aspirations while simultaneously receiving a phenomenal education. The NCAA funds scholarship athletes to attend school and allow them to pursue their athletic aspirations.
Zion Williamson, Duke’s No. 1 pick in the NBA draft, is a viral icon. During a recent game, Williamson was injured, sparking discussion from many industry professionals about whether or not college athletes should receive compensation.
Professional athletes DeMarcus Cousins and Donovan Mitchell expressed their opinion that the freshman should protect himself and take his talents to the professional ranks.
Utah Jazz guard Donovan Mitchell tweeted: “Again, let’s remember all the money that was put into this game…and these players got nothing for it…and now Zion is injured…something needs to change.»
Additionally, Warriors center, who only played one year of college ball, DeMarcus Cousins, said that “College is bullshit. College basketball, the NCAA, is bullshit. My advice is to do what is best for you and your family. Obviously, college…it doesn’t do anything for you at this point. You have proven that you are the #1 choice. You have proven your talent. You are ready for the next level.
These words paint a picture that shows one side of the argument. If college athletes get injured before turning professional, then they can say goodbye to any career they might have had. By not getting paid, the NCAA is simply promoting an environment in which athletes can compete at the highest level without the added pressure of professional play.
The NCAA supports the dreams of student-athletes across the country, whether or not they are destined to become professionals.
The Denver Post, in an article titled “College Athletes Are Students, Not Employees,” strongly suggests the purpose of college sports with the following statement: “About 98 percent of students who play football or basketball will go on to become professionals in something other than sports…They know that college athletics prepares them for successful lives and careers through the experiences they enjoy and the education they receive.”
The NCAA must prioritize the education of student-athletes in order to maintain their standing in the eyes of those who represent the foundation of the NCAA. Student-athletes must receive recognition for their quality as students, in addition to their athletic achievements.
Financial and opportunity inequalities would strain the NCAA if it decides to pay athletes. This argument seems to forget that the NCAA pays for student-athletes and their education if they are on a scholarship, and those who ask for money are certainly on a scholarship. Financially, how can schools of all sizes, conferences and divisions achieve equal compensation for their athletes?
Additionally, different school programs have different budgets for their respective sports. For example, Alabama football is a powerhouse, loaded with top recruits throughout its 97-player roster, and because of their success, their salaries could be larger than those of the Alabama tennis team. Alabama, which also competes in the same SEC competition.
Would players from each school’s most revered programs be paid more than their fellow student-athletes on the same campus? What if some schools had deeper pockets, allowing them to pay athletes more, would the balance of power shift even further toward whoever is already dominant?
NPR, in an interview titled “The Madness of March,” suggests that gamers receiving pay-to-play would only worsen financial inequality. By compensating college athletes, an inevitable disparity is created between players and sports, causing conflicts in recruiting and how coaches attract players to their schools.
By paying athletes to do what they love, is their scholarship money disappearing? Many schools don’t have the money to distribute to every athlete while they pay for those same athletes to attend school and create a backup plan outside of sports.
Collusion, conflict and inequality are a few words that would describe the NCAA if it had to pay its athletes. Many complain that the NCAA is selfish and unfair in not paying athletes who risk their careers due to injuries. However, NCAA colleges offer the same student-athletes many more jobs and opportunities outside of their sport by paying for their education. The NCAA does an admirable job supporting thousands of athletes on and off the field.
