Yes

Parth’s take

Imagine helping an organization earn millions of dollars annually and not pocketing a single penny of the profits, regardless of your efforts. Unfortunately, this is a reality for collegiate athletes across the country.

According to The Huffington Post, the NCAA brought in $989 million in its 2014 fiscal year per an audited financial statement, according to USA Today. Approximately $547 million of this revenue was given to Division I conferences and schools in the same fiscal year, and since the NCAA’s expenses totaled $908.6 million, it ended up netting $80.5 million for the year.

Money coming in from lucrative television deals, ticket and jersey sales, promotions and other streams of revenue go to the NCAA, the schools, the coaches and everyone else involved in the business. Everyone gets a “piece of the pie,” except for the ones primarily responsible for bringing in the profit, the student-athletes.

One current argument against paying collegiate athletes is that many are already getting full-ride scholarships, which cover everything from their tuition to room and board to books. According to CollegeBoard.com, the average cost of attendance for a public, four-year university in the 2016-17 academic year was $35,370. The problem is it is unfair to assume that this is fair compensation for a job that requires many athletes to spend anywhere from 30 to 50 hours every week practicing, performing or traveling for their respective sports.

The cost of a free education is worth a lot, and it is a privilege many American students would be more than grateful to receive. However, often the quality of education that student-athletes receive is heavily watered down, cheapening the value of their scholarship. Major athletic programs at universities are content with their “student-athletes” spending more time in the gym or on the field than in the classroom or hitting the books because success in athletic competition is what makes these institutions money.

The idea of the NCAA wanting to protect the integrity of collegiate athletics and maintain an amateur status for its athletes is just an excuse for not compensating its workers. Just as any other student on a full-ride academic scholarship can go work at the student store or library to earn extra money without it affecting their scholarship status, the same should go for athletes.

This is not to say that NCAA athletes should be given millions for their efforts, but schools should be able to pay what they deem fit to their athletes, to an extent. Also, if these athletes cannot be paid outright, there is no reason for them to not be able to pursue entrepreneurial pursuits of their choosing.

There should be no issue with a local car dealership or fast food establishment wanting to pay a collegiate athlete for appearing in commercials or for promoting products. Student-athletes should be able to make money off their own name or talents just as a student journalist can make money by freelance writing or how a student musician can make money at coffee shop gigs.

In a college setting, the athletes are the only ones limited from making money outside of their free education. The players are essentially already employees for their universities just as much as much, if not more, as they are students.

Just as Boyce Watkins, a professor of finance at Syracuse University, recently told Bleacher Report, it is time for the NCAA to redefine its mission and be honest with the world.

No

Halen’s take

For decades now the question has been debated in college sports: Should student-athletes be paid to play? Strong arguments have been made on either side, and the debate has at times made it to the executive level of the NCAA. However, when considering all of the factors that are in play and the impact of paying college players, I believe the answer is no.

The debate itself is not a new one. Over the past few decades, college athletics has transformed from the pinnacle of amateur sporting competition to a billion-dollar commercial powerhouse. The NCAA makes billions of dollars every year in TV contracts and licensing, and university coaches and athletics directors generally bring home six to seven figures a year.

Student-athletes never see a dime of this money. A university can make millions in a single season of football or basketball if its team does well, but none of those funds trickle down into the players’ pockets. These students often struggle to afford college and make ends meet, especially in the case of non-scholarship athletes (which includes the majority of all collegiate athletes).

It makes sense why these athletes would feel jealous enough to want some of the big bucks their supervisors are making. Those who desperately need the money often cannot seek out other employment due the time they dedication to their respective sport. However, it must be made clear that being a college athlete is a choice, and even in the age of billion-dollar college sports programs, the athletes still play solely for the love of the game.

To further my argument, I will examine the implications of paying student-athletes. Perhaps the most obvious question that arises is the appropriate compensation for a student-athlete. On-campus jobs for students average a pay of slightly over minimum wage, and generally feature a cap of 20 hours a week. Student-athletes often spend more than that amount of time in practice and training.

Another issue is equal pay. Almost all of the revenue from collegiate athletics comes from contracts and earnings related to football and men’s basketball. Of the dozens of other college sports, many actually cost their university money as a whole. To pay non-revenue athletes would be nearly impossible financially, and would almost certainly lead to the shutdown of many programs across the country.

There’s almost no way a university could get away with paying football and basketball players more than other athletes, so the university would have to find a pay rate and scale appropriate to all student-athletes.

There are bigger issues in play as well. One great feature of college sports is that practically any school can have their moment of glory with a conference or national championship. However, not all universities are made the same. Outside of powerhouses in the top five conferences, many colleges struggle financially to keep their players on the field. And that’s without player compensation. If colleges were required to pay student-athletes, many universities would be forced to not have student-athletes at all.

Of those who could afford to pay, bidding wars would occur over high school prospects. For example, NC State could have a better women’s basketball program than Wake Forest, but if NC State pays players $8 per hour and Wake offers $11 per hour, a great player could be more likely to go to Wake Forest. This negative cycle would only get worse over time, as the wealthiest programs could recruit the best players year after year, leaving other universities in the dust.

In terms of gameplay, a highly praised feature of non-revenue sports is their purity. Non-revenue sports are considered un-adulterated, as money and commercialism are yet to interfere with the rules of the game. Players are there for their love of the sport and desire to succeed.

In a world where student-athletes require compensation, that purity goes away. Athletics as a whole loses its amateurism, and playing a sport becomes an occupation instead of a passion.