When it comes to paying college athletes, everybody has an opinion. Facts outweigh opinions, however, and the fact is that paying college athletes would be both immoral to the athletes and detrimental to university athletic departments.
There is no feasible way to pay every college athlete a stipend, as some have suggested. The argument for a stipend is to set aside some of the revenue from the highest-grossing teams at the school and spread that wealth between all the athletes at the price of $2,000 per student. This is simply impractical as the revenue from those high-grossing teams — usually football, basketball or hockey — are already redistributed throughout universities’ athletic teams.
This redistributed money is used to pay for travel costs, uniforms and field maintenance. Without these funds, less spotlight-heavy teams such as field hockey and cross country would bear the brunt of the blowback. Unable to continue operations, it would be nearly impossible for universities to keep funding as many teams as they do now.
Athletic departments themselves very rarely generated enough money to cover their expenses in 2012. According to a USA Today Sports, just 23 of 228 athletic departments were able to cover their own expenses last year. This means that 205 athletic departments had to receive subsidies to cover their operating costs. If there was an excess of money to share, there is little to no doubt it should go to the student athletes, but there simply isn’t enough money to go around.
So if we cannot give stipends to every student athlete, how about just the ones that bring in money for their school? I mean, isn’t it fair that the ones bringing publicity and income to the school be given more than those that play sports out of the spotlight?
Well, to put it simply: no. Just because a football player is featured on SportsCenter, it does not give them an edge over the cross country runner who put the same amount of work and dedication into his or her sport. The football player may bring in more money for the university, but it would be immoral to give one player precedence over another when they both gave back everything they could to the school. That cross country runner has put in just as much time as that quarterback, so the quarterback is no more deserving of extra money than the cross country runner is.
Not only is it immoral to pay one player and not another, it is also illegal.
Title IX states that: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”
If that sounds exactly what would be happening here, that’s because it is. Seeing as men’s sports statistically bring in more money than women’s sports, they would get an advantage as far as getting paid for play. It wouldn’t take five minutes for a lawsuit to be filed, one that the NCAA would almost certainly lose, if an agreement to pay athletes based on revenue brought to the school was made.
It is not as if college athletes go unrewarded for their work.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reports that there is $902 billion in outstanding student loan debt in the United States today. A CNN study reports students graduating in 2012 found themselves averaging $35,200 in debt. Many student athletes, particularly those in high-revenue sports, are given substantial scholarships to play the sport they love. In some cases, they are given scholarships covering not just tuition but their schoolbook costs.
They are given the chance to continue playing the sport they love and are given financial assistance for school along with this opportunity.
Student athletes are valuable members of university communities, bringing pride and sometimes fame with their athletic prowess. While they bring so much to the school, in return they are given financial assistance and an opportunity to continue doing what they love, which is the way it should be.