Austin Murray

Professor Kelleher

English 102-008

2 April 2018

It is Surprising That College Athletes Are Not Payed Yet

College sports have become a major part of American culture. From football in the south

east or basketball along the east coast, millions of people keep up with at least one college sport.

March Madness brings in millions of dollars for the National Collegiate Athletic Association, or

NCAA for short. The schools that advance in the tournament also make millions of dollars for

their athletic programs. This money is so important to the school that they have paid some of the

best high school prospects to ensure that they play for their school. A recent FBI probe into

college basketball found that top prospects like

Collin Sexton of the University of Alabama and

DeAndre Ayton of the University of Arizona were

paid secretly to avoid getting in trouble with the

NCAA. This begs the question, since coaches and

university programs are willing to illegally pay college athletes, should they get paid? I believe

that college athletes should get paid because their sport takes much of their attention away from

class and they generate millions of dollars for their university.

College athletes are the most important factor to the NCAA making money. Without

them, there are billions of dollars left on the table. That is why college athletes should get paid.

They make other people money, and they do not get any despite their hard work. Veronica
Majerol, who is currently the Managing Editor of Digital for The New York Times Upfront,

states that last year alone the NCAA took in eight hundred million dollars during March

Madness alone, while the players in the tournament made nothing (Majerol). Just imagine how

much the NCAA makes from the College Football Playoff, College Baseball World Series, and

the other championship series. That amount of

money could, at the very least, go to the

players who put in the work and won the

championship. Also, when star athletes come

around, like Kris Jenkins at Villanova or

Baker Mayfield at Oklahoma, the universities

they play for make millions of dollars through ticket sales for games, licensed merchandise, and

deals with television stations like the southeastern conference has with CBS. Athletes deserve

some kind of compensation for the amount of money they make. It does not have to be much

either. They can be paid minimum wage for the time spent in a game with a bonus for winning

conference or national championships and individual awards. Some people believe that college

athletes should not be paid because they are amateurs in their sport, not professionals. They

believe that they should only get paid once they make it to the pros. There are two main

problems with this argument. The first is that many of the athletes do not make it into the pro

leagues. According to the NCAA, only about three percent of all college athletes make it into the

pros. While they are not good enough to make it into the pros, they still contribute to the team

and the universities’ profit. The other issue is that amateurism for college students seems to only

apply to athletes. Musician students are free to make money from concerts they may put on in

public. They are encouraged by their peers and teachers to do so if they are good enough.
College athletes, on the other hand, cannot make money for their talents despite them and

musicians being amateurs in their respective fields.

The NCAA also limits how college athletes can make

money. Donald De La Haye, a kicker for the

University of Central Florida, made money making

YouTube videos while he was on the team. His

content included him kicking inside the Central

Florida football facilities. The NCAA gave him a choice. They said he can either keep making

money from YouTube as long as he does not promote he is a college athlete, he can demonetize

his videos, or he can keep doing what he is doing, but he will be ruled ineligible. De La Haye

refused the NCAA’s offer and decided to keep doing what he was doing in the first place.

Because of this, he lost his scholarship for football and now plans to transfer from Central

Florida because he cannot afford the tuition costs (Bonesteel). The NCAA should not have this

kind of power over student athletes. De La Haye used his talents in the same way that musician

students do, and still was told he could not make money using his talent. This makes it difficult

for student athletes to make money if they cannot even use their talents to do it. They need ways

to make money, and the NCAA should be who pays them. We do not have to pay them millions

of dollars, but some kind of compensation should be required.

Another reason student athletes should get paid is because games and practice take

precious time from them that they need for studying for classes and it restricts the majors and

jobs they can go for. Many football and basketball players major in business because it is the

only major that fits their schedule. They simply cannot fit the number of classes needed to be a

teacher and coach if they wanted to. This limits the amount of jobs they can get after college if
they are not good enough to go pro. As previously stated only about three percent of athletes

make it to the pros, so that would leave roughly ninety-seven percent without a job they might

want. Also, being a student athlete takes time away from studying for tests and quizzes in class.

Having a full day of classes and having practice for hours after and little time in between does

not allow for a studying period. Student athletes should be compensated for the amount of work

that they have on their plates. Some people believe that student athletes get paid in the way of

scholarships. Having their education paid for while many others do not is a way of being paid to

some. While I do think that scholarships are a form of compensation, it should not be the only

one. These scholarships that the players receive are for four years, and while they do cover

hundreds of thousands of dollars, it may still be difficult to find a job if they did not major in

what they wanted. Also, not everyone gets a scholarship. Some players are required to pay full

tuition or rely on other scholarships the school provides. Giving players a lifetime scholarship is

not the answer either. They need to be paid like every other employee of the university.

College athletes should also be paid according to existing federal labor laws. Kenneth J

Cooper, a newspaper reporter who specializes in government, states that according to these labor

laws, student athletes should be considered personnel of the university, and should be entitled to

form unions, negotiate wages, hours, and working conditions (Cooper). Student athletes put in so

much more work than the average student, and even some of the employees of the universities,

that they deserve to be paid, or at the very least they deserve to have the option to negotiate their

hours. Even though court precedents and tax laws have ruled college athletes as primarily

students, it does not mean that they cannot be reversed. Plenty of court precedents have been

overruled in the past like Walton v. Arizona, which was overturned by Ring v. Arizona. Ring v.

Arizona makes it necessary for the jury, not the judge, to find the aggravating factors necessary
to qualify the defendant for the death penalty beyond reasonable doubt (Visger). While it only

overturned a part of Walton v. Arizona, it did show that rulings in supreme court cases can be

overturned if they are out dated. Overturning the previous ruling on college athletes being

students first is not impossible, and it would be beneficial to the players. The way that coaches

expect their players to put their sports first goes against the idea that the NCAA believes that

they are students first rather than athletes.

The fact that college athletes are not being paid yet is surprising. When the NCAA first

formed, college sports were not nearly as popular as they are now. The amateur ruling made

sense because there was little money that went to universities, and athletes were not expected to

do as much. Today, it is the total opposite. The NCAA makes billions of dollars off student

athletes, and they are expected to do more than ever before, while still being considered

amateurs. While some think that scholarships are compensation enough for student athletes, I

believe that student athletes should get paid because they could be considered employees of their

universities, the work they put in despite the free time it takes from them, and the amount of

money they make for the NCAA and their universities.

 Work Cited

Bonesteel, Matt. “UCF Kicker Wouldn't Agree to NCAA's YouTube Rules, so the School Ruled

Him Ineligible.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 1 Aug. 2017,

www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/08/01/ucf-kicker-wouldnt-agree-to-

ncaas-youtube-rules-so-the-school-ruled-him-ineligible/?noredirect.

Cooper, Kenneth J. "Should College Athletes Be Paid to Play?." Diverse: Issues in Higher

Education, vol. 28, no. 10, 23 June 2011, pp. 12-13. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ931405&site=ehost-live.

“Estimated Probability of Competing in Professional Athletics.” NCAA.org - The Official Site of

the NCAA, 13 Mar. 2017, www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/estimated-probability-

competing-professional-athletics.

Majerol, Veronica. "Should college athletes be paid? two recent rulings may change the face of

college sports." New York Times Upfront, 15 Sept. 2014, p. 14+. General Reference

Center GOLD,

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A383048730/GRGM?u=tusc49521&sid=GRGM&xid

=4a209c02. Accessed 9 Mar. 2018.

Visger, Mark A. "The Impact of Ring V. Arizona on Military Capital Sentencing." Army Lawyer,

no. 388, Sept. 2005, p. 71. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=18854313&site=ehost-live.