Writing Project 4

Zach Davis

Dr. Wielgos

College Writing II

4 May 2015

The Case for Paying Division I College Athletes

Division I college sports have always been a part of every person’s life in some way. Whether you are a student or faculty member at a big university, an avid sports fan, or just simply on the bandwagon of a college or university in your region or local market, Division I college athletics are apart of everybody’s life. Behind the scenes of all of this is a glaring and ongoing problem, the compensation of the athletes that make the fun and excitement possible. Division I athletes should be able to receive a share of the billions of dollars they help generate for the school. It is only fair due to the amount of time and effort they put into their particular sport. I believe Division I college athletes should get paid like the everyday worker.

Division I athletics are a huge part of a college or university’s annual profit each year. An article from Current Events magazine states that “College football and men's basketball generate revenues of more than $6 billion every year” (Pay to Play). Obviously, that is an astronomical amount of money and it should be available to the players. They helped build the school’s brand from a sports standpoint and generate most, if not all of that money. The Current Events article also states, “Many college athletes receive scholarship money, but the average amount of funding in an athletic scholarship does not even cover all of a student's tuition” (Pay to Play). Even though most of these players’ school fees are paid through athletic scholarships, a good portion of these kids come from impoverished backgrounds. Darron Smith is an assistant professor in the department of physician assistant studies at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, states “it is obvious to the casual observer that the bulk of young men who entertain and thrill fans in these most high-profile sports happen to be African-American. These students, most of them from urban landscapes, stand to gain the most from reform” (Smith, Darron). Most of these kids may need money for items that are essential to living, such as good clothes, a car, and dorm room necessities. In contrast to players not being rightfully compensated, the university and it’s hierarchy of administrators and head athletic coaches reap the rewards of the money the players give blood, sweat, and tears for. An article from the Scholastic News magazine puts emphasis on a good point. The article states, “Many college athletes bring in a lot of revenue for their universities and the NCAA. Even their coaches get paid--sometimes millions of dollars. It's unfair for the players who bring in so much money and fame for their schools to not get a single penny” (Scholastic News). Most of the money generated from Division I college athletics is never seen by the athletes themselves, because it pumped right back into the school’s infrastructure and salaries of the university’s administration, faculty, and staff. The head coaches of these Division I programs, in particular, get paid millions of dollars per year. If the coaches of the Division I teams can have exuberant contracts, why can not the players be part of some of the profit as well. Like all big time sports teams, the players should be able to get some of the money they help make available.

Along with not being compensated the way they should, playing on a Division I athletic team consumes so much time. Scholastic News notes that “Playing a college sport can be like working a full-time job. College athletes sometimes put in 40 to 60 hours each week for practices, travel, and games” (Scholastic News). Due to mandatory practices, meetings, and games, the players do not have time to get a part time job. This could create a problem for kids who's parents, family, or friends can not afford to send kids money all time. To go another step further with this argument, Michigan State University professors Robert and Amy McCormick say Division I college athletes are employees under Federal Labor Laws. Their evidence is based on the decision of a 2004 court case that ruled that graduate assistants at Brown University are students of the university and not employees. The court ruling states that to qualify as an employee, a person needs “the right of others to control a his/her’s activities, whether that he/she is compensated, and if that person is economically dependent on that compensation” (Cooper). The law professors find out that college athletes meet all three of the criteria, because a coach controls whatever they do. Also, an athletic scholarship amounts to compensation and players depend on that for food, housing, and their school tuition. Robert McCormick states, ”The right of control is the biggest one, they (coaches) have such control over the lives of the young men and at the end of the season or sometimes even during the season, they can say, you're fired” (Cooper). In their analysis of the Brown University decision, the McCormicks concluded that the social status of athletes is different from graduate student assistants’ social status. The professors say athletes are not primarily going to college to learn, but to play sports unrelated to their course of study and fall under the supervision of coaches rather than faculty members. Robert McCormick later emphasized this idea, ”In our judgment, young men playing major football and basketball are not there primarily for an education.” He adds, “They’re primarily there to win football games and basketball games and perform well” (Cooper). Most kids who go to a Division I university for a sport usually and are not putting a huge emphasis on academics. As part of being a worker, people of the same profession should be able to unionize and

collectively bargain their wages, health benefits, etc. or at least have some type of agreement with the school like a work-study program. Darron Smith writes, “college athletes in the high-profile and high-revenue sports have a should have the right to unionize and, thus, to bargain collectively over health-care coverage, transfer rules, and even practice time” (Smith, Darron). Since the players who are the ones actually playing the sport on a daily basis, they should have some say in what goes on. Unionizing will also allow athletes to negotiate with the college officials on the best interests of the school and the players. An alternative to unionizing is by making the players playing a sport be like participating in a work study program. An article from Current Events states, “All colleges have work-study programs, so students can work in the library or gym and get paid for their services," he says, referencing a typically work study program that allows students to pay tuition fees by working for their university. "I see athletics on the collegiate level just like a work-study program.” (Pay to Play). Turning sports into a program similar to work study programs is an alternative for colleges and universities who do not want to have full blown labor unions on their campuses. If the NCAA does indeed allow Division I athletes to be treated like employers, labor unions or some sort of benefit program would have to be established in order avoid major conflicts of interest.

In every argument, there is always a rebuttal or different side of an argument. Paying Division I college athletes is a fairly progressive idea and will always face fierce opposition. Walter Byers, who wrote “Unsportsmanlike Conduct”, a book about exploiting college athletes, believes “a athletes’ bill of rights will wildly imbalance the system and destroy college athletics, He continues by saying, “it would destroy the integrity of college sports” (Byers, 384). Another way of saying of expressing that feeling can be heard in Darron Smith’s article. He quotes NCAA president Mark Emmert expresses the same point of view. He states, "This union-backed attempt to turn student athletes into employees undermines the purpose of college: an education.” He finishes by saying, “Student athletes are not employees, and their participation in college sports is voluntary." He believes unionizing Division I college sports "would blow up everything about the collegiate model of athletics” (Smith, Darron). Basically what he is saying is that he thinks the players would lose their love of game and will play simply for the money. I do not believe paying someone for their positive efforts on the playing surface would  “ruin the integrity of a sport.” No matter would job, or profession a person has, if he/she makes money for someone else that person should be paid in some way. The coaches are rewarded handsomely, why can not the players be too. Pat Fitzgerald, head football at Northwestern University makes $2.2 million a year and Northwestern’s football program is not that particularly good or even popular (Smith, Darron).  If the NCAA was so worried about ruining the pureness of the game, then they should manage and regulate coaches’ salaries. From an academic standpoint, some colleges and universities believe college athletes should be considered students first. By receiving checks, they would be more similar to employees or professionals than undergraduate or graduate college students. College athletes should not forget that their main purpose at school is to learn get an education. Peter Higgins, a lacrosse coach at Princeton Day School and a agrees. He believes "college athletes should focus mainly on education, athletics is just an added incentive, which provides them opportunities.” Some colleges and universities have gone as far as trying to turn all college athletics into a famous or student only event. This way would allow the schools to ruin the programs more easily and avoid outside interference. Harvard, Yale, and Princeton tried out this idea and it did not go over so well. Alumni and the general public did not like the exclusiveness of the idea and the students at the universities saw the excitement and media coverage of Division I sports as one of the most exciting things that happens on campus (Smith, Ronald A, 13). Even with all the counterarguments to paying Division I college athletes, I believe it would be in best interest of the players and the university as a whole to pay the players what they rightfully deserve.

Division I college athletes should be paid a just wage for the amount of money they bring to their respective college of university. They bring in substantial amounts of money and a lot of popularity to the school. For the amount of time and effort that is put in to going practices, games, etc. these players do not have time to get part time jobs and make some money during their college careers. This could pose a huge problem for kids who come from really poor families. On top of that, if the NCAA claims they are a school extracurricular activity, then they should lower coach salaries and stop signing huge television and endorsement deals. You can not pay the coaches earn top 1% type of money and have the players fend for themselves. 

Work Cited

Byers, Walter, and Charles H. Hammer. Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Exploiting College Athletes. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan, 1995. Print.

Cooper, Kenneth. "Should College Athletes Be Paid to Play?" Proquest. Proquest, 23 June 2011. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.

"Pay to Play." EBSCOhost. Current Events, 6 Feb. 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.

"Should College Athletes Be Paid?" EBSCOhost. Scholastic News, 2 Mar. 2015. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.

Smith, Darron. "Emancipate the Black College Athlete." Proquest. Proquest, 5 May 2014. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.

Smith, Ronald A. Pay for Play: A History of Big-time College Athletic Reform. Urbana, Chicago: U of Illinois, 2011. Pg. 13. Print.