Young 1

Christopher Young
Mrs. DeBock
English 4
13 October, 2015
Should College Athletes be Paid?
In an increasingly industrialized world where media serves as one of the largest forms of
entertainment, athletics has become a profitable market. Media rights to film big name sports
such as football and basketball cost millions of dollars. The rising revenue earned by athletics at
the collegiate level has caused many critics to question the fact that college athletes are not paid.
To put in perspective the massive amount of money in the newly developing industry, NCAA
paid 11 billion dollars for 14 years of media rights on the March Madness basketball tournament
alone (Charleston Gazette). Big name college coaches now earn millions of dollars, far more
than any professors. Despite the impressive sum of money earned by these select schools, paying
college athletes would be detrimental to colleges unable to earn the revenue larger schools
generate. College athletes should not be paid because they are participating in athletics as
amateurs; however, reforms should be placed on economic policies and player entitlements to
improve conditions for college athletes.
Since the introduction of collegiate athletics, students participating in sports have been
considered amateurs. In recent years the label of amateurism has been sufficient reason to avoid
paying athletes. However, critics have begun to question this reasoning and argue that the
amount of time athletes invest in their craft make it invalid to refer to them as amateurs. In fact

Young 2
Allen Sack and Ellen Staurowsky refer to the concept of amateurism as the ability to leisurely
enjoy an activity for fun rather than work (4). After analyzing this concept, it seems far-fetched
that institutions of higher learning can continue to refer to these athletes as amateurs. By
retaining the amateur status, colleges can avoid supporting athletes sustaining career ending
injuries (Charleston Gazette). Micah Issitt presents information in his article The Money in
College Sports that argues the use of amateur athletes allows colleges to commercially exploit
the athletes for donating their skill to earn revenue without being given sufficient recognition for
their contributions. Upon reflection the use of amateurs in college sports seems unfair and
significant reforms need to be placed on the current system.
In order to refute this argument there must be a new concept to the use of the word
amateur referring to college athletes. These athletes are not participating in athletics for a
leisurely activity, however they are amateurs compared to the professional athletes they are
striving to become. To further understand this, comparisons can be made between a college
athlete and an intern. College athletics are a stepping stone on the path to a professional career,
similar to how an intern is learning skills in order to follow a specific career. Krikor Meshefejian
argues that stripping away the title of amateur would also destroy the principles of collegiate
sports and divert attention away from the primary goal of college, which is education. Removing
the title of amateurism would result in further commercialization and exploitation in college
athletics. Although, there are reforms that are in need of being implemented to minimalize
exploitation and commercialization already present. For starters, colleges should be unable to
revoke scholarships on the basis of a career ending injury, leaving the athlete to pay medical
expenses out of pocket (College Athletes Should Receive a Scholarship Raise to Cover
Necessities). Also, restrictions on employment should be reduced for athletes, allowing them to

Young 3
earn more money and decrease the debate for payment through the school (College Athletes
Should Receive a Scholarship Raise to Cover Necessities). These reforms would preserve
amateurism while improving the lifestyle of college athletes and maintaining focus on education.
Perhaps the most pressing matter pushing the move towards paying college athletes is the
shocking amount of wealth suddenly present in college athletics over the past decade. According
to an article in the Charleston Gazette, The average compensation for head football coaches at
public universities, now more than $2 million, has grown 750 percent [since 1984], compared to
the 32 percent raise for college professors. Thomas Cottle shows that University of Connecticuts
football team alone earns $12 million dollars in revenue alone per year. These statistics are
deceiving because they make it seem like these universities wouldnt be harmed by reallocated a
small portion of the revenue to college athletes. In fact, less than 40 percent of all athletic
programs will break even financially and less than 25 percent will profit (Issit). Of the profitable
organizations, the majority of the revenue will be reinvested into the athletic program that earned
it or used to fund all other athletics at the university. Colleges already pay up to 3 to 6 times
more for an average athlete compared to a regular student (Issitt). This information validates the
fact that paying athletes would be beneficial to only a select few extremely successful football
and basketball programs and devastating to all other athletics. Programs such as soccer or
swimming that earn little to no revenue would be unable to continue if they were forced to pay
their athletes. Paying athletes would also lead to significant recruiting gaps between rich schools
able to pay for the best players in the world while poor schools would be unable to provide the
same salaries (Meshefejian). Krikor Meshefajian lays it out quite simply, showing that more
talent gaps between schools would lead to less competition, which would lead to less excitement,
and overall less revenue generated for the colleges. After analyzing the sheer amount of wealth

Young 4
that is required to maintain athletic programs and how few colleges benefit financially it seems
ridiculous to propose paying athletes.
Economically paying athletes would be detrimental; however, reforms need to be put in
place to benefit athletes who are unable to pay for necessities such as cost of living and meal
plans. Some reforms have already been mentioned such as schools being unable to revoke
scholarships to players sustaining career ending injuries. Another such reform would be taking a
small portion of revenue earned from athletics and redirect it to cover costs of living for student
athletes (College Athletes Should Receive a Scholarship Raise to Cover Necessities). Other
reforms would include revamping focus on the educational aspect of the college experience.
Collegiate athletics was originally formed as another form of earning higher education (Issitt).
Students unable to pay tuition fees would be able to earn scholarships through athletics to assist
them upon their education. However, this system has become flawed and industrialized for
entertainment, creating a certain level of corruption present in college athletics (Issitt).
College athletes should not be paid due to their participation in athletics as armatures and
the diversity of wealth between colleges of varying skill levels; however entitlements can be put
in place to improve player lifestyles. Since the introduction of televised athletics, a market for
young talent at the collegiate level has skyrocketed. The industry has grown at an exponential
rate that has startled many critics and caused many to review why the athletes earned millions of
dollars for their schools are earning no share of the revenue. The sheer amount of wealth present
in the newly found industry has caused corruption and exploitation at the collegiate level. Micah
Issitt goes on to say there is no one solution to this immense problem but, many reforms can be
put in place to improve college lifestyles.

Young 5
Works Cited
Cottle, Thomas. "March Money Madness: The Coaches vs. The Professors." The Chronicle of
Higher Education 30 (2009): Academic OneFile. Web. 21 Sept. 2015.
Issitt, Micah. "The Money Game in College Sports." Points Of View: Reference Shelf- Sports
Culture (2014): 1. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 21 Sept. 2015.
Meshefejian, Krikor. "Pay to Play: Should College Athletes be Paid?" The Journal of the
Business Law Society (23 Mar. 2005). Rpt. in Should College Athletes be Paid? Ed. Geoff
Griffin. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008 Web. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. 15 Sept.
2015.
National College Players Association. "College Athletes Should Receive a Scholarship Raise to
Cover Necessities." Should College Athletes Be Paid? Ed. Geoff Griffin. Detroit:
Greenhaven Press, 2008. At Issue. Rpt. from "CAC Mission &Goals." 2007. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 15 Sept. 2015.
Sack, Allen L., and Ellen J. Staurowsky. College Athletes for Hire the Evolution and Legacy of
the NCAA's Amateur Myth. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1998. Print.
"Should College Athletes Get Paid?." The Charleston Gazette. (WV) 21 Sept. 2011: Points of
View Reference Center. Web. 21 Sept. 2015.