March Madness is in full swing, which tends to stir up the age-old question of paying college student-athletes.
Student-athletes’ abilities and skills are often used as heavy promotional and advertising tools for their college. Some people think this should yield some sort of profit for those students.
On the other hand, people believe that the student-athletes are being “paid” through the scholarships they receive.
The proponents of paying student-athletes explain that these students have a full-time job within their sports. Practices, training, and games take up a significant amount of time from their every day lives. Then they still have to attend classes, study for exams and maintain the same schedule as a traditional college student.
Though college athletics are extracurricular activities, the NCAA tournament schedules often expand several days, requiring the athletes to miss class.
Another point of this argument is that these student-athletes bring in revenue for their school. Those who argue that the students should be paid, say that since the student is bringing in profit, they should benefit too.
The athletes are the ones in the game or competition, however the revenue that is brought in does not go to academics, but rather the coaching staff. Yes, the coaches have an impact on the teams, their success and functionality, but the student-athletes are the ones putting in hours of hard work on and off the field or court.
There are two sides to every coin, and the flip side of this one is that the athletes are being paid through their scholarships.
Depending on the sport, the school, and the athlete, their tuition could be paid in full or they could have stipends for books, housing or food.
Those who are against paying student-athletes say that though the students are not being written a check, they’re being paid with an education. If student-athletes were being paid by salary, they would have taxes taken out and depending on the income they receive, the taxes could be high.
Some also think that giving the student-athletes “cash payment” could lead to a danger of putting the student in debt.
When student-athletes are awarded scholarships, there is no question to where the money is going. If they were paid through salary they could be spending their income on things other than tuition.
The biggest component of this side of the argument is that college athletics would become a business landmine filled with deals, trades, and contracts, similar to the professional leagues.
Earning a position on a college team is a dream for many student-athletes coming out of high school. If payment was offered, it could lead to student-athletes committing to a program based on the highest offer.
Paying student-athletes would make playing the sport their job and earning an education their extracurricular activity. Student-athlete is an important title because they are a student and then an athlete. These students are in college to earn an education, yet they are able to pursue a passion and dream in sports at the same time.
Offering salaries raises the probability of changing those students’ motivations for school.
All in all, no matter what side of the coin you land on, or what perfectly formed arguments people form, the only entity with the power to change or to stay the same is the NCAA. The NCAA will have to be the one to decide if they will change their long-standing idea of college athletics, that “young men and women on the field or court are students first, athletes second.”
