<p>Seems to be an increasingly talked about. There is an article in Time magazine this week. Given the billions of dollars that are being made, should athletes be getting paid?</p>
<p>I have a few thoughts:</p>
<p>There are approximately 450,000 college athletes and only a miniscule percentage play for big time football and basketball programs. How do we make the rules apply toeveryone?</p>
<p>If you allow outside compensation how do you prevent player compensation from outside sources from being corrupted. </p>
<p>Will women receive fair compensation?</p>
<p>Will this just mean that big programs get bigger and smaller programs that can't pay no longer can attract good recruits?</p>
<p>Should the big programs tha can pay be separated into their own division and if they are what rules apply to thoe other sports at those schools?</p>
<p>No billions are being made unless you end all sports except D-1 football. This will go away. Much like the $15 for flipping burgers and Occupy movements–short-lived reactions to an economy outside individual’s control.</p>
<p>Why not just let college athletes market themselves and be able to remain eligible to play but get paid for endorsements or their autograph?</p>
<p>No need to pay them but if Johnny Manziel can score a deal to be on a box of Wheaties let him. If a woman water polo can get a bathing suit endorsement deal let her.</p>
<p>NCAA schools on average lose $10 million (per school) per year due to sports, after alumni donations. Only 24 schools are profitable. If athletes were required to be paid (never mind their free education, mega boost in admissions, and free tutoring), this would tip the scale too far in favor of those 24 schools as many programs would have to either:</p>
<p>A. Drop down to D3 (The B1G president I believe alluded to one of these)
B. Leave the NCAA all together
C. Cut expenditures on athletics making the program less attractive to top tier recruits</p>
<p>It may be better to allow the student athlete to have a work study job for 5-10 hours a week, enough (barely?) to earn some pizza or move money. I think it is too much to expect student athletes to not be able to earn some spending money somehow. But, the money doesn’t have to come from endorsements or the athletic department.</p>
<p>I think athletes should be able to negotiate and keep individual endorsements - any money they get for endorsements would eliminate need, much like outside scholarships decrease aid for “normal” students. They would get endorsements supposedly for their individual merit much like kids get scholarships for their particular merit. Why discriminate whose money and where it comes from?</p>
<p>Endorsements are rarely based solely on individual merit. They’re based on marketability. Yes, top athletes are more likely to get endorsements, but that doesn’t mean that the #1 athlete in a field will automatically make more than the #5 athlete if the #5 athlete is more attractive, more amiable, better-liked, etc.</p>
<p>I definitely don’t think college players should get paid a salary for playing sports, nor do I think they should be allowed to get endorsements (save that for the professional players). They should be allowed work-study jobs if their schedule allows for it, though.</p>
<p>If you go to your in-state university scholarship the tuition/room and board is about $20-25k for you. You commit about 20-30 hours a week to the sport close to all year round. The value of the scholarship really is not that great.</p>
<p>Sure the value increases if you go to a $50k private or an expensive out of state but the compensation of free tuition is not what it appears to be. Would you say a student on work/study has free tuition?</p>
<p>If an athlete can get endorsements, why do we want to stand in the way? Many of these athletes come from lower SES backgrounds. Coaches are making millions. Entire school athletic programs are being paid for by these revenue sports. Why should the gifted athlete be impoverished in school while the kid with a wealthy father just gets to have the great apartment and car?</p>
<p>If an athlete has that talent, let them have the shoe contract.</p>
<p>I am totally against paying athletes. The big time college athletic system is already incredibly tainted. The purpose of attending college is to receive an education not to be compensated for a game you choose to play. I have tremendous respect for the effort and discipline required to be an exceptional athlete but all but a minuscule amount of collegiate athletes will have a greater need for a quality education than an agent.</p>
<p>I don’t think they should be paid. I think the NFL and the NBA should run their own minor leagues just like baseball. The top athletes with pro prospects can then go into the minor leagues and get paid.</p>
<p>to clarify my post: athletes currently receiving full ride athletic scholarships should be allowed to have a part time job (workstudy or otherwise) in order to earn their spending money. Right now they are not allowed this part time job.</p>
<p>I was not endorsing taking away any portion of the scholarship and making the student pay tuition or room and board from work study.</p>
<p>Clearly I agree with you poet regarding endorsements. I do not think all athletes on all college teams should be paid as if the athletics were a job. In my opinion that is a very different scenario than allowing athletes who attract endorsements from keeping those endorsements and decreases or eliminating their aid commensurate to the amount of the endorsement.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, I don’t think athletes should be paid, but I do believe, either the scholarships should provide some pocket money, or they should be allowed to participate in work/study programs.</p>