Should college athletes be paid?

Some college athletes should be paid because of all the money they provide for the NCAA and their schools. Football and men’s basketball bring in the most money, and the athletes should get some of the money that they bring in.  Other sports, such as baseball, hockey, and tennis do not bring in enough money, and their athletes should not be paid.  This is capitalism, not everyone gets paid the same.  The pay should be based upon the money that the sport generates.  There is a $10.8 billion-dollar deal between the NCAA and CBS for March Madness, between 2011 and 2024, which is only 21 days per year. Also, ESPN is paying the College Football Playoff $5.64 billion to air the games on ESPN, which is only 11-1/2 hours out of 8,760 hours in the year.  

Some people will say that athletes shouldn’t get paid because they are only in college and they don’t need that much money. College is expensive, and requires money.  Many college athletes are broke, and the NCAA rules stop coaches from giving them money.  Players can only have $7.00 per meal, but the NCAA executives make about $1 million.  Players put their bodies on the line every game for their sport and a lot of people benefit.  I feel like it is imperative that we pay them before players start boycotting. 

Also, some people will say that the education that athletes are given is an equal exchange, but schools are already used to “paying students.”  For example, schools give out scholarships as a form of payment for things like grades which means that they will get more students.   So why not pay athletes for what they bring to the school.  Because some athletes aren’t on a full ride scholarship, they will need a way to pay student loans/debt.  The amount of some athletic scholarships doesn’t equal the money the player has to pay for school.  

My idea in college basketball would be to pay the schools who make it to March Madness. The athletes and the schools could benefit.  Paying the players that make the post season would make more people want to watch the games because the games would be a whole lot more competitive.  Also, that would make a lot of players want to go to college and play. Because men’s basketball players can make money by entering the draft and playing professionally after one year of college, many leave college.  So many people hate the “one and done rule,” so with paying players it would mean that more athletes would want to stay in college and get paid.  For example, take Darius Bazley, he passed up on Syracuse to go to the G-league to get paid. The G-league is the minor league NBA.  Unlike the NCAA, playing in the G-league gives the players a professional feeling by allowing them to prepare to play against the best players in the world while getting paid. The G-league would be less popular because getting paid in college would allow students the option to play, get paid, and get a degree.   

My idea in college football would be, to pay the schools and athletes who make the top 25 ranking. That would make college football so much more competitive, and so much more enjoyable because the players are trying to get in the top 25. The NCAA Division 1 average athletic revenue for one football team is $29,635,946. The players should be able to have some of that money.  Football is a physical sport and can cause a lot of damage to the body.  Paying these top performing athletes would help them have a money benefit from all of the pressure that they put their bodies through.   

The NCAA should pay the players, especially the football and basketball players, because of all that they bring to the sport and schools.  Paying the players would attract more athletes to the sports and also bring in more money for the schools and the NCAA because the level of competition would get bigger.  Right now, the athlete makes a lot of sacrifice and everyone else gets the gain.  Paying players would mean that they get some of the money that they help to bring in.    

  • Chance Marick