Should College Athletes Get Paid?

Do you think college athletes should get paid?

Although I lean towards 'No', I still have mixed feelings on this issue. These kids already get scholarships which are worth thousands, but then again, if they help the school rake in the big bucks, why shouldn't they get their slice of the pie?

A tough, tough call with many factors to consider.

They are receiving scholarships for an education they do not want lol

Quote: aceofspades

They are receiving scholarships for an education they do not want lol

Ace, didn't you go to Georgetown on a BJ scholarship?

Quote: Beethoven9th

Do you think college athletes should get paid?

Although I lean towards 'No', I still have mixed feelings on this issue. These kids already get scholarships which are worth thousands, but then again, if they help the school rake in the big bucks, why shouldn't they get their slice of the pie?

A tough, tough call with many factors to consider.

I'm not sure how I should vote, I don't think they should be paid by the school in any form other than scholarships, but I think they should be able to accept endorsement deals as long as same are not facilitated by, or in conflict with, the college in question.

Quote: aceofspades

They are receiving scholarships for an education they do not want lol

Depends which sport they are taking part in... most in the football programs won't make the majors, so scholarship puts them in the right stead for a degree. Other sports, like running, it's a way for a kid to get through University. Though I doubt the running program would pay anyways... we are talking really only about the major sports.

Should they be paid? It would change the nature of college sports in a way that might not be for the best.

This is a huge conflict. For every Notre Dame Football Program that is a money machine there is a University of Buffalo that gets only local interest. Football and Basketball are the only college sports that generate any real income. I lived with a Division I wrestler who absolutely "got paid" in that his scholarship was a net refund after his Pell and other grants kicked in. The was about $1,500 per semester and that was 20 years ago. I know for a fact this was the case as I both saw his statement and watched him cash out at the Bursar's Office.

So unless things have changed, the "poor inner city kids" in these programs are still doing the same thing.

I do support lifting the ban from having athletes at Division I work or at least giving them some walking around cash. I also think the whole football/basketball idea of college athletes is nearly a joke and it might be time to just make them "employees" and let them play for pay and get free classes same as the rest of employees from janitor to professor.

Why shouldn't student athletes make the same scaled, pre-set, insultingly low rate as students who have work-study jobs? Student athletes sure don't need to get rich, but some payment is fair.

I think some "walking around money" would help keep them out of trouble. So I support something along those lines. It would be pay, but I'm talking about enough to cover misc expenses.

Quote: rdw4potus

Why shouldn't student athletes make the same scaled, pre-set, insultingly low rate as students who have work-study jobs? Student athletes sure don't need to get rich, but some payment is fair.

Be careful... Some people might argue that energy salesmen also should be given some insultingly low wage since they too "don't need to get rich". Besides, some of them just end up wasting money on gambling trips to casinos in Buffalo Breath, WY. ;)

I voted yes to pay for several reasons:

When talking about major sports programs, i believe that the original idea was that parity would exist at the top level by not allowing schools to "sign" players. This has failed as we see the same teams winning the National Championship year after year.

The schools are profiteers who have no remorse selling millions of dollars worth of a player's jersey and taking that money. All the while the player is not allowed to receive any of the profits generated from selling his name.

Furthermore I think of the NCAA tourney, the networks pay substantial monies. The athletes do not receive any of these profits.

I understand that the revenue from major programs is used to fund education and other non-revenue generating sports but to achieve this level of performance should be rewarded. If not for these dedicated athletes many of the other programs may not be feasible due to budget constraints at the NCAA level.

If a reasonable cap would be put on the "salary" they paid these men and women it would not be significantly different from what is taking place now. I do think for me personally it would take something away from the game knowing that they are now essentially professionals.

The already get paid.

Some of these guys have to take a pay cut when they get to the NFL or NBA.

Quote: bigfoot66

Be careful... Some people might argue that energy salesmen also should be given some insultingly low wage since they too "don't need to get rich". Besides, some of them just end up wasting money on gambling trips to casinos in Buffalo Breath, WY. ;)

LOL!! I'm sure not getting rich. I suppose if I stopped spending all my money on roadtrips...

I think there's 3 positions here: 1. status quo 2. paid like other student jobs 3. paid like revenue producing studs. I would rank my preferences 2, 1, 3. I don't think it's fair that student athletes are not allowed to work other jobs and also not paid. But it would be less fair for them to be paid more than their professors...

I say yes - if a school has to pay all of its athletes, in every sport, men and women, the same amount.

The main problem I see is, when people say "pay the athletes," almost all of the time, they are referring only to "big-time" football and men's basketball programs - "after all, those are the only ones that bring in money." (In a way, that's true; Division I men's basketball is the only NCAA tournament where the NCAA doesn't keep the profits, in part because there are hardly any profits to keep.) This is just asking for a Title IX lawsuit. ("Of course all of the players on the "paid" team are men! The men are far better than the women!" "Congratulations - you not only explained why Title IX exists in the first place, but you made it quite clear that it's every bit as necessary today as it was in the early 1980s when the NCAA started conducting women's championship tournaments.")

One thing that I fear is, somebody is going to suggest this "solution": the first 20 minutes of a game is women's basketball, and the second 20 minutes is men's.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Do you think college athletes should get paid?

Sure. But just the basketball, football, and to a degree, baseball players. And if the volleyball and track teams want to whine about that, they can start getting paid, too. That is, once they pack 50,000 people in a stadium.

I absolutely disagree that they should all get paid equally. The ones making the money should be the ones getting paid. Other gifted athletes in less popular sports can continue just getting scholarships with full benefits, which is plenty generous.

I thought the whole meat of this argument was that students making money for the school are getting too little compensation in return. Now, I have to give some chick on the field hockey team a cut of the sale of my "JIMMER" jerseys?

Yes. We need a salary cap for college students.

Other than science grants and sports contracts, what other areas of study need better funding to attract the smartest students?

Well, I'm going with home economics. Do women even know how to cook these days?

I still don't see the problem with my solution, in my opinion, there's no reason for a bench-riding player to get compensated the same as the team's star, nor is there any compelling reason that athletes from sports that don't drive revenue should get paid as much as athletes from profitable sports.

I think they should be able to sign outside endorsement deals, in exchange for cash or goods, and the school should do nothing to facilitate, or interfere with, same as long as the endorsement deal doesn't conflict with the school's interest(s).

It could be either a local or national endorsement, if some car dealership in New Jersey wanted to give Gary Nova a new car to do four or five commercials for them, and it didn't interfere with Rutgers in any way, I really don't see the problem with that. If they wanted to give him cash, again, no problem.

The only thing you would need is approval in order to give the school the ability to prevent advertisements that conflicted with the school, or its values, directly. If the school had some deal by which they use Reebok apparel, they might not want their star quarterback doing a Nike commercial, but the QB should be allowed to do a separate commercial for Reebok if there is no conflict with the school schedule. Notre Dame might not want a player to do a commercial for Trojan Condoms, so they should have boycott rights on that.

In this scenario:

1.) The college pays the player nothing, except scholarships.
2.) There are no legal issues having to do with pay and gender.
3.) There are no equal treatment issues having to do with pay for this sport vs. that sport.
4.) The player can make money based on his subjective value as an advertising tool.

The other thing is that all of the athletes would be free to pursue (or have an agent pursue on their behalf) advertising deals. Whether it be a star quarterback or a Women's Volleyball player, everyone would be on equal footing because they could all try to get deals.

I would say that a player could mention who he/she is, what school he/she is from and the position the player plays in the ad, since these are just factual statements. Each school should have the right to either permit or disallow the use of any associated names, logos or trademarks in these advertisements on a case-by-case basis, or as a blanket rule, if the school sees fit.

I think the only question that remains is whether or not players (or entire teams) could enter into deals by which they endorse companies as a sort of, "Package deal." Going back to the volleyball example, in most cases, I would suggest that most companies wouldn't be too interested in having an individual player do an ad for them, but the entire team might be a different story. Again, if there's no direct conflict with the school or its values, I fail to see why not.

Quote: Mission146

I think they should be able to sign outside endorsement deals, in exchange for cash or goods, and the school should do nothing to facilitate, or interfere with, same as long as the endorsement deal doesn't conflict with the school's interest(s).

This is exactly what I was going to say. seems like a perfect solution to me

Quote: Mission146

It could be either a local or national endorsement, if some car dealership in New Jersey wanted to give Gary Nova a new car to do four or five commercials for them, and it didn't interfere with Rutgers in any way, I really don't see the problem with that. If they wanted to give him cash, again, no problem.

While I am not totally against this I will add that if it were allowed then the entire system needs changed, not that this is a bad thing. The entire reason for the "no jobs" rule was to keep local boosters from giving guys no-show jobs and allowing the school to stack a team. In typical bureaucratic response they said since cheating can happen then nobody can work at all.

I find the NCAA to be a bit of a joke and think it is time for say the top 20-50 schools to decide they have had enough and make a new governing body where they could make their own rules on this kind of thing. Just decide it is a revenue-producing business and be done with it, regulating it as such.