speech on why college athletes should be paid

Choose Your Test

• Search Blogs By Category
• College Admissions
• AP and IB Exams
• GPA and Coursework

Should College Athletes Be Paid? An Expert Debate Analysis

Extracurriculars

The argumentative essay is one of the most frequently assigned types of essays in both high school and college writing-based courses. Instructors often ask students to write argumentative essays over topics that have “real-world relevance.” The question, “Should college athletes be paid?” is one of these real-world relevant topics that can make a great essay subject! 

In this article, we’ll give you all the tools you need to write a solid essay arguing why college athletes should be paid and why college athletes should not be paid. We'll provide:

• An explanation of the NCAA and what role it plays in the lives of student athletes
• A summary of the pro side of the argument that's in favor of college athletes being paid
• A summary of the con side of the argument that believes college athletes shouldn't be paid
• Five tips that will help you write an argumentative essay that answers the question "Should college athletes be paid?" 

The NCAA is the organization that oversees and regulates collegiate athletics. 

What Is the NCAA? 

In order to understand the context surrounding the question, “Should student athletes be paid?”, you have to understand what the NCAA is and how it relates to student-athletes. 

NCAA stands for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (but people usually just call it the “N-C-double-A”). The NCAA is a nonprofit organization that serves as the national governing body for collegiate athletics. 

The NCAA specifically regulates collegiate student athletes at the organization’s 1,098 “member schools.” Student-athletes at these member schools are required to follow the rules set by the NCAA for their academic performance and progress while in college and playing sports. Additionally, the NCAA sets the rules for each of their recognized sports to ensure everyone is playing by the same rules. ( They also change these rules occasionally, which can be pretty controversial! ) 

The NCAA website states that the organization is “dedicated to the well-being and lifelong success of college athletes” and prioritizes their well-being in academics, on the field, and in life beyond college sports. That means the NCAA sets some pretty strict guidelines about what their athletes can and can't do. And of course, right now, college athletes can't be paid for playing their sport. 

As it stands, NCAA athletes are allowed to receive scholarships that cover their college tuition and related school expenses. But historically, they haven't been allowed to receive additional compensation. That meant athletes couldn't receive direct payment for their participation in sports in any form, including endorsement deals, product sponsorships, or gifts.  

Athletes who violated the NCAA’s rules about compensation could be suspended from participating in college sports or kicked out of their athletic program altogether. 

The Problem: Should College Athletes Be Paid? 

You know now that one of the most well-known functions of the NCAA is regulating and limiting the compensation that student-athletes are able to receive. While many people might not question this policy, the question of why college athletes should be paid or shouldn't be paid has actually been a hot-button topic for several years.

The fact that people keep asking the question, “Should student athletes be paid?” indicates that there’s some heat out there surrounding this topic. The issue is frequently debated on sports talk shows , in the news media , and on social media . Most recently, the topic re-emerged in public discourse in the U.S. because of legislation that was passed by the state of California in 2019.

In September 2019, California governor Gavin Newsom signed a law that allowed college athletes in California to strike endorsement deals. An endorsement deal allows athletes to be paid for endorsing a product, like wearing a specific brand of shoes or appearing in an advertisement for a product.

In other words, endorsement deals allow athletes to receive compensation from companies and organizations because of their athletic talent. That means Governor Newsom’s bill explicitly contradicts the NCAA’s rules and regulations for financial compensation for student-athletes at member schools.

But why would Governor Newsom go against the NCAA? Here’s why: the California governor believes that it's unethical for the NCAA to make money based on the unpaid labor of its athletes . And the NCAA definitely makes money: each year, the NCAA upwards of a billion dollars in revenue as a result of its student-athlete talent, but the organization bans those same athletes from earning any money for their talent themselves. With the new California law, athletes would be able to book sponsorships and use agents to earn money, if they choose to do so. 

The NCAA’s initial response to California’s new law was to push back hard. But after more states introduced similar legislation , the NCAA changed its tune. In October 2019, the NCAA pledged to pass new regulations when the board voted unanimously to allow student athletes to receive compensation for use of their name, image, and likeness. 

Simply put: student athletes can now get paid through endorsement deals. 

In the midst of new state legislation and the NCAA’s response, the ongoing debate about paying college athletes has returned to the spotlight. Everyone from politicians, to sports analysts, to college students are arguing about it. There are strong opinions on both sides of the issue, so we’ll look at how some of those opinions can serve as key points in an argumentative essay.

Let's take a look at the arguments in favor of paying student athletes!

The Pros: Why College Athletes Should B e Paid

Since the argument about whether college athletes should be paid has gotten a lot of public attention, there are some lines of reasoning that are frequently called upon to support the claim that college athletes should be paid. 

In this section, we'll look at the three biggest arguments in favor of why college athletes should be paid. We'll also give you some ideas on how you can support these arguments in an argumentative essay.

Argument 1: The Talent Should Receive Some of the Profits

This argument on why college athletes should be paid is probably the one people cite the most. It’s also the easiest one to support with facts and evidence. 

Essentially, this argument states that the NCAA makes millions of dollars because people pay to watch college athletes compete, and it isn’t fair that the athletes don't get a share of the profits

Without the student athletes, the NCAA wouldn’t earn over a billion dollars in annual revenue , and college and university athletic programs wouldn’t receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from the NCAA each year. In fact, without student athletes, the NCAA wouldn’t exist at all. 

Because student athletes are the ones who generate all this revenue, people in favor of paying college athletes argue they deserve to receive some of it back. Otherwise, t he NCAA and other organizations (like media companies, colleges, and universities) are exploiting a bunch of talented young people for their own financial gain.

To support this argument in favor of paying college athletes, you should include specific data and revenue numbers that show how much money the NCAA makes (and what portion of that actually goes to student athletes). For example, they might point out the fact that the schools that make the most money in college sports only spend around 10% of their tens of millions in athletics revenue on scholarships for student-athletes. Analyzing the spending practices of the NCAA and its member institutions could serve as strong evidence to support this argument in a “why college athletes should be paid” essay. 

I've you've ever been a college athlete, then you know how hard you have to train in order to compete. It can feel like a part-time job...which is why some people believe athletes should be paid for their work!

Argument 2: College Athletes Don’t Have Time to Work Other Jobs

People sometimes casually refer to being a student-athlete as a “full-time job.” For many student athletes, this is literally true. The demands on a student-athlete’s time are intense. Their days are often scheduled down to the minute, from early in the morning until late at night. 

One thing there typically isn’t time for in a student-athlete’s schedule? Working an actual job. 

Sports programs can imply that student-athletes should treat their sport like a full-time job as well. This can be problematic for many student-athletes, who may not have any financial resources to cover their education. (Not all NCAA athletes receive full, or even partial, scholarships!) While it may not be expressly forbidden for student-athletes to get a part-time job, the pressure to go all-in for your team while still maintaining your eligibility can be tremendous. 

In addition to being a financial burden, the inability to work a real job as a student-athlete can have consequences for their professional future. Other college students get internships or other career-specific experience during college—opportunities that student-athletes rarely have time for. When they graduate, proponents of this stance argue, student-athletes are under-experienced and may face challenges with starting a career outside of the sports world.

Because of these factors, some argue that if people are going to refer to being a student-athlete as a “full-time job,” then student-athletes should be paid for doing that job.  

To support an argument of this nature, you can offer real-life examples of a student-athlete’s daily or weekly schedule to show that student-athletes have to treat their sport as a full-time job. For instance, this Twitter thread includes a range of responses from real student-athletes to an NCAA video portraying a rose-colored interpretation of a day in the life of a student-athlete. 

Presenting the Twitter thread as one form of evidence in an essay would provide effective support for the claim that college athletes should be paid as if their sport is a “full-time job.” You might also take this stance in order to claim that if student-athletes aren’t getting paid, we must adjust our demands on their time and behavior.

Argument 3: Only Some Student Athletes Should Be Paid

This take on the question, “Should student athletes be paid?” sits in the middle ground between the more extreme stances on the issue. There are those who argue that only the student athletes who are big money-makers for their university and the NCAA should be paid.  

The reasoning behind this argument? That’s just how capitalism works. There are always going to be student-athletes who are more talented and who have more media-magnetizing personalities. They’re the ones who are going to be the face of athletic programs, who lead their teams to playoffs and conference victories, and who are approached for endorsement opportunities. 

Additionally, some sports don't make money for their schools. Many of these sports fall under Title IX, which states that no one can be excluded from participation in a federally-funded program (including sports) because of their gender or sex. Unfortunately, many of these programs aren't popular with the public , which means they don't make the same revenue as high-dollar sports like football or basketball . 

In this line of thinking, since there isn’t realistically enough revenue to pay every single college athlete in every single sport, the ones who generate the most revenue are the only ones who should get a piece of the pie. 

To prove this point, you can look at revenue numbers as well. For instance, the womens' basketball team at the University of Louisville lost $3.8 million dollars in revenue during the 2017-2018 season. In fact, the team generated less money than they pay for their coaching staff. In instances like these, you might argue that it makes less sense to pay athletes than it might in other situations (like for University of Alabama football, which rakes in over $110 million dollars a year .) 

There are many people who think it's a bad idea to pay college athletes, too. Let's take a look at the opposing arguments. 

The Cons: Why College Athletes Shouldn't Be Paid

People also have some pretty strong opinions about why college athletes shouldn't be paid. These arguments can make for a pretty compelling essay, too! 

In this section, we'll look at the three biggest arguments against paying college athletes. We'll also talk about how you can support each of these claims in an essay. 

Argument 1: College Athletes Already Get Paid

On this side of the fence, the most common reason given for why college athletes should not be paid is that they already get paid: they receive free tuition and, in some cases, additional funding to cover their room, board, and miscellaneous educational expenses. 

Proponents of this argument state that free tuition and covered educational expenses is compensation enough for student-athletes. While this money may not go straight into a college athlete's pocket, it's still a valuable resource . Considering most students graduate with nearly $30,000 in student loan debt , an athletic scholarship can have a huge impact when it comes to making college affordable . 

Evidence for this argument might look at the financial support that student-athletes receive for their education, and compare those numbers to the financial support that non-athlete students receive for their schooling. You can also cite data that shows the real value of a college tuition at certain schools. For example, student athletes on scholarship at Duke may be "earning" over $200,000 over the course of their collegiate careers. 

This argument works to highlight the ways in which student-athletes are compensated in financial and in non-financial ways during college , essentially arguing that the special treatment they often receive during college combined with their tuition-free ride is all the compensation they have earned.

Some people who are against paying athletes believe that compensating athletes will lead to amateur athletes being treated like professionals. Many believe this is unfair and will lead to more exploitation, not less. 

Argument 2: Paying College Athletes Would Side-Step the Real Problem

Another argument against paying student athletes is that college sports are not professional sports , and treating student athletes like professionals exploits them and takes away the spirit of amateurism from college sports . 

This stance may sound idealistic, but those who take this line of reasoning typically do so with the goal of protecting both student-athletes and the tradition of “amateurism” in college sports. This argument is built on the idea that the current system of college sports is problematic and needs to change, but that paying student-athletes is not the right solution. 

Instead, this argument would claim that there is an even better way to fix the corrupt system of NCAA sports than just giving student-athletes a paycheck. To support such an argument, you might turn to the same evidence that’s cited in this NPR interview : the European model of supporting a true minor league system for most sports is effective, so the U.S. should implement a similar model. 

In short: creating a minor league can ensure athletes who want a career in their sport get paid, while not putting the burden of paying all collegiate athletes on a university. 

Creating and supporting a true professional minor league would allow the students who want to make money playing sports to do so. Universities could then confidently put earned revenue from sports back into the university, and student-athletes wouldn’t view their college sports as the best and only path to a career as a professional athlete. Those interested in playing professionally would be able to pursue this dream through the minor leagues instead, and student athletes could just be student athletes. 

The goal of this argument is to sort of achieve a “best of both worlds” solution: with the development and support of a true minor league system, student-athletes would be able to focus on the foremost goal of getting an education, and those who want to get paid for their sport can do so through the minor league. Through this model, student-athletes’ pursuit of their education is protected, and college sports aren’t bogged down in ethical issues and logistical hang-ups. 

Argument 3: It Would Be a Logistical Nightmare

This argument against paying student athletes takes a stance on the basis of logistics. Essentially, this argument states that while the current system is flawed, paying student athletes is just going to make the system worse. So until someone can prove that paying collegiate athletes will fix the system, it's better to maintain the status quo. 

Formulating an argument around this perspective basically involves presenting the different proposals for how to go about paying college athletes, then poking holes in each proposed approach. Such an argument would probably culminate in stating that the challenges to implementing pay for college athletes are reason enough to abandon the idea altogether. 

Here's what we mean. One popular proposed approach to paying college athletes is the notion of “pay-for-play.” In this scenario, all college athletes would receive the same weekly stipend to play their sport . 

In this type of argument, you might explain the pay-for-play solution, then pose some questions toward the approach that expose its weaknesses, such as: Where would the money to pay athletes come from? How could you pay athletes who play certain sports, but not others? How would you avoid Title IX violations? Because there are no easy answers to these questions, you could argue that paying college athletes would just create more problems for the world of college sports to deal with.

Posing these difficult questions may persuade a reader that attempting to pay college athletes would cause too many issues and lead them to agree with the stance that college athletes should not be paid. 

5 Tips for Writing About Paying College Athletes

If you’re assigned the prompt “Should college athletes be paid," don't panic. There are several steps you can take to write an amazing argumentative essay about the topic! We've broken our advice into five helpful tips that you can use to persuade your readers (and ace your assignment).

Tip 1: Plan Out a Logical Structure for Your Essay

In order to write a logical, well-organized argumentative essay, one of the first things you need to do is plan out a structure for your argument. Using a bare-bones argumentative outline for a “why college athletes should be paid” essay is a good place to start. 

Check out our example of an argumentative essay outline for this topic below: 

• The thesis statement must communicate the topic of the essay: Whether college athletes should be paid, and 
• Convey a position on that topic: That college athletes should/ should not be paid, and 
• State a couple of defendable, supportable reasons why college athletes should be paid (or vice versa).
• Support Point #1 with evidence
• Explain/interpret the evidence with your own, original commentary 
• Support Point #2 with evidence
• Explain/interpret the evidence with your own, original commentary
• Support Point #3 with evidence
• New body paragraph addressing opposing viewpoints
• Concluding paragraph

This outline does a few things right. First, it makes sure you have a strong thesis statement. Second, it helps you break your argument down into main points (that support your thesis, of course). Lastly, it reminds you that you need to both include evidence and explain your evidence for each of your argumentative points. 

While you can go off-book once you start drafting if you feel like you need to, having an outline to start with can help you visualize how many argumentative points you have, how much evidence you need, and where you should insert your own commentary throughout your essay. 

Remember: the best argumentative essays are organized ones! 

Tip 2: Create a Strong Thesis 

T he most important part of the introduction to an argumentative essay claiming that college athletes should/should not be paid is the thesis statement. You can think of a thesis like a backbone: your thesis ties all of your essay parts together so your paper can stand on its own two feet! 

So what does a good thesis look like? A solid thesis statement in this type of argumentative essay will convey your stance on the topic (“Should college athletes be paid?”) and present one or more supportable reasons why you’re making this argument. 

With these goals in mind, here’s an example of a thesis statement that includes clear reasons that support the stance that college athletes should be paid: 

Because the names, image, and talents of college athletes are used for massive financial gain, college athletes should be able to benefit from their athletic career in the same way that their universities do by getting endorsements. 

Here's a thesis statement that takes the opposite stance--that college athletes shouldn’t be paid --and includes a reason supporting that stance: 

In order to keep college athletics from becoming over-professionalized, compensation for college athletes should be restricted to covering college tuition and related educational expenses.

Both of these sample thesis statements make it clear that your essay is going to be dedicated to making an argument: either that college athletes should be paid, or that college athletes shouldn’t be paid. They both convey some reasons why you’re making this argument that can also be supported with evidence. 

Your thesis statement gives your argumentative essay direction . Instead of ranting about why college athletes should/shouldn’t be paid in the remainder of your essay, you’ll find sources that help you explain the specific claim you made in your thesis statement. And a well-organized, adequately supported argument is the kind that readers will find persuasive!

Tip 3: Find Credible Sources That Support Your Thesis

In an argumentative essay, your commentary on the issue you’re arguing about is obviously going to be the most fun part to write. But great essays will cite outside sources and other facts to help substantiate their argumentative points. That's going to involve—you guessed it!—research. 

For this particular topic, the issue of whether student athletes should be paid has been widely discussed in the news media (think The New York Times , NPR , or ESPN ). 

For example, this data reported by the NCAA shows a breakdown of the gender and racial demographics of member-school administration, coaching staff, and student athletes. These are hard numbers that you could interpret and pair with the well-reasoned arguments of news media writers to support a particular point you’re making in your argument. 

Though this may seem like a topic that wouldn’t generate much scholarly research, it’s worth a shot to check your library database for peer-reviewed studies of student athletes’ experiences in college to see if anything related to paying student athletes pops up. Scholarly research is the holy grail of evidence, so try to find relevant articles if you can. 

Ultimately, if you can incorporate a mix of mainstream sources, quantitative or statistical evidence, and scholarly, peer-reviewed sources, you’ll be on-track to building an excellent argument in response to the question, “Should student athletes be paid?”

Having multiple argumentative points in your essay helps you support your thesis.

Tip 4: Develop and Support Multiple Points

We’ve reviewed how to write an intro and thesis statement addressing the issue of paying college athletes, so let’s talk next about the meat and potatoes of your argumentative essay: the body paragraphs. 

The body paragraphs that are sandwiched between your intro paragraph and concluding paragraph are where you build and explain your argument. Generally speaking, each body paragraph should do the following: 

• Start with a topic sentence that presents a point that supports your stance and that can be debated, 
• Present summaries, paraphrases, or quotes from credible sources--evidence, in other words--that supports the point stated in the topic sentence, and
• Explain and interpret the evidence presented with your own, original commentary. 

In an argumentative essay on why college athletes should be paid, for example, a body paragraph might look like this: 

Thesis Statement : College athletes should not be paid because it would be a logistical nightmare for colleges and universities and ultimately cause negative consequences for college sports. 

Body Paragraph #1: While the notion of paying college athletes is nice in theory, a major consequence of doing so would be the financial burden this decision would place on individual college sports programs. A recent study cited by the NCAA showed that only about 20 college athletic programs consistently operate in the black at the present time. If the NCAA allows student-athletes at all colleges and universities to be paid, the majority of athletic programs would not even have the funds to afford salaries for their players anyway. This would mean that the select few athletic programs that can afford to pay their athletes’ salaries would easily recruit the most talented players and, thus, have the tools to put together teams that destroy their competition. Though individual athletes would benefit from the NCAA allowing compensation for student-athletes, most athletic programs would suffer, and so would the spirit of healthy competition that college sports are known for. 

If you read the example body paragraph above closely, you’ll notice that there’s a topic sentence that supports the claim made in the thesis statement. There’s also evidence given to support the claim made in the topic sentence--a recent study by the NCAA. Following the evidence, the writer interprets the evidence for the reader to show how it supports their opinion. 

Following this topic sentence/evidence/explanation structure will help you construct a well-supported and developed argument that shows your readers that you’ve done your research and given your stance a lot of thought. And that's a key step in making sure you get an excellent grade on your essay! 

Tip 5: Keep the Reader Thinking

The best argumentative essay conclusions reinterpret your thesis statement based on the evidence and explanations you provided throughout your essay. You would also make it clear why the argument about paying college athletes even matters in the first place. 

There are several different approaches you can take to recap your argument and get your reader thinking in your conclusion paragraph. In addition to restating your topic and why it’s important, other effective ways to approach an argumentative essay conclusion could include one or more of the following: 

While you don’t want to get too wordy in your conclusion or present new claims that you didn’t bring up in the body of your essay, you can write an effective conclusion and make all of the moves suggested in the bulleted list above. 

Here’s an example conclusion for an argumentative essay on paying college athletes using approaches we just talked about:

Though it’s true that scholarships and financial aid are a form of compensation for college athletes, it’s also true that the current system of college sports places a lot of pressure on college athletes to behave like professional athletes in every way except getting paid. Future research should turn its attention to the various inequities within college sports and look at the long-term economic outcomes of these athletes. While college athletes aren't paid right now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that a paycheck is the best solution to the problem. To avoid the possibility of making the college athletics system even worse, people must consider the ramifications of paying college students and ensure that paying athletes doesn't create more harm than good.

This conclusion restates the argument of the essay (that college athletes shouldn't be paid and why), then uses the "Future Research" tactic to make the reader think more deeply about the topic. 

If your conclusion sums up your thesis and keeps the reader thinking, you’ll make sure that your essay sticks in your readers' minds.

Should College Athletes Be Paid: Next Steps 

Writing an argumentative essay can seem tough, but with a little expert guidance, you'll be well on your way to turning in a great paper . Our complete, expert guide to argumentative essays can give you the extra boost you need to ace your assignment!

Perhaps college athletics isn't your cup of tea. That's okay: there are tons of topics you can write about in an argumentative paper. We've compiled 113 amazing argumentative essay topics so that you're practically guaranteed to find an idea that resonates with you.

If you're not a super confident essay writer, it can be helpful to look at examples of what others have written. Our experts have broken down three real-life argumentative essays to show you what you should and shouldn't do in your own writing.

Trending Now

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

ACT vs. SAT: Which Test Should You Take?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Get Your Free

Find Your Target SAT Score

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

How to Get a Perfect SAT Score, by an Expert Full Scorer

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading and Writing

How to Improve Your Low SAT Score

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading and Writing

Find Your Target ACT Score

Complete Official Free ACT Practice Tests

How to Get a Perfect ACT Score, by a 36 Full Scorer

Get a 36 on ACT English

Get a 36 on ACT Math

Get a 36 on ACT Reading

Get a 36 on ACT Science

How to Improve Your Low ACT Score

Get a 24 on ACT English

Get a 24 on ACT Math

Get a 24 on ACT Reading

Get a 24 on ACT Science

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Ashley Sufflé Robinson has a Ph.D. in 19th Century English Literature. As a content writer for PrepScholar, Ashley is passionate about giving college-bound students the in-depth information they need to get into the school of their dreams.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

• Bachelor’s Degrees
• Master’s Degrees
• Doctorate Degrees
• Certificate Programs
• Nursing Degrees
• Cybersecurity
• Human Services
• Science & Mathematics
• Communication
• Liberal Arts
• Social Sciences
• Computer Science
• Admissions Overview
• Tuition and Financial Aid
• Incoming Freshman and Graduate Students
• Transfer Students
• Military Students
• International Students
• Early Access Program
• About Maryville
• Our Faculty
• Our Approach
• Our History
• Accreditation
• Tales of the Brave
• Student Support Overview
• Online Learning Tools
• Infographics

Home / Blog

Should College Athletes Be Paid? Reasons Why or Why Not

January 3, 2022 

Tables of Contents

Why are college athletes not getting paid by their schools?

How do student athlete scholarships work, what are the pros and cons of compensation for college athletes, keeping education at the center of college sports.

Since its inception in 1906, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has governed intercollegiate sports and enforced a rule prohibiting college athletes to be paid. Football, basketball, and a handful of other college sports began to generate tremendous revenue for many schools in the mid-20th century, yet the NCAA continued to prohibit payments to athletes. The NCAA justified the restriction by claiming it was necessary to  protect amateurism  and distinguish “student athletes” from professionals.

The question of whether college athletes should be paid was answered in part by the Supreme Court’s June 21, 2021, ruling in  National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, et. al.  The decision affirmed a lower court’s ruling that blocked the NCAA from enforcing its rules restricting the compensation that college athletes may receive.

• As a result of the NCAA v. Alston ruling, college athletes now have the right to profit from their  name, image, and likeness  (NIL) while retaining the right to participate in their sport at the college level. (The prohibition against schools paying athletes directly remains in effect.)
• Several states have passed laws  that allow such compensation. Colleges and universities in those states must abide by these new laws when devising and implementing their own policies toward NIL compensation for college athletes.

Participating in sports benefits students in many ways: It helps them focus, provides motivation, builds resilience, and develops other skills that serve students in their careers and in their lives. The vast majority of college athletes will never become professional athletes and are happy to receive a full or partial scholarship that covers tuition and education expenses as their only compensation for playing sports.

Athletes playing Division I football, basketball, baseball, and other sports generate revenue for their schools and for third parties such as video game manufacturers and media companies. Many of these athletes believe it’s unfair for schools and businesses to profit from their hard work and talent without sharing the profits with them. They also point out that playing sports entails physical risk in addition to a considerable investment in time and effort.

This guide considers the reasons for and against paying college athletes, and the implications of recent court rulings and legislation on college athletes, their schools, their sports, and the role of the NCAA in the modern sports environment.

Back To Top

Discover a first-of-its-kind sport business management program

The online BS in Rawlings Sport Business Management from Maryville University will equip you with valuable skills in marketing, finance and public relations. No SAT or ACT scores required.

• Engage in a range of relevant course topics, from sports marketing to operations management.
• Gain real-world experience through professional internships.

The reasons why college athletes aren’t paid go back to the first organized sports competitions between colleges and universities in the late 19th century. Amateurism in college sports reflects the “ aristocratic amateurism ” of sports played in Europe at the time, even though most of the athletes at U.S. colleges had working-class backgrounds.

By the early 20th century, college football had gained a reputation for rowdiness and violence, much of which was attributed to the teams’ use of professional athletes. This led to the creation of the NCAA, which prohibited professionalism in college sports and enforced rules restricting compensation for college athletes. The rules are intended to preserve the amateurism of student participants. The NCAA justified the rules on two grounds:

• Fans would lose interest in the games if the players were professional athletes.
• Limiting compensation to capped scholarships ensures that college athletes remain part of the college community.

NCAA rules also prohibited college athletes from receiving payment to “ advertise, recommend, or promote ” any commercial product or service. Athletes were barred from participating in sports if they signed a contract to be represented by an agent as well. As a result of the NIL court decision, the NCAA will no longer enforce its rule relating to compensation for NIL activities and will allow athletes to sign contracts with agents.

Major college sports now generate billions in revenue for their schools each year

For decades, colleges and universities have operated under the assumption that  scholarships are sufficient compensation  for college athletes. Nearly all college sports cost more for the schools to operate than they generate in revenue for the institution, and scholarships are all that participants expect.

But while most sports don’t generate revenue, a handful, notably football and men’s and women’s basketball, stand out as significant exceptions to the rule:

• Many schools that field teams in the NCAA’s Division I football tier  regularly earn tens of millions of dollars  each year from the sport.
• The NCAA tournaments for men’s and women’s Division I basketball championships  generated more than $1 billion in 2019 .

Many major colleges and universities generate a considerable amount of money from their athletic teams:

• The Power Five college sports conferences — the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 12, and Southeastern Conference (SEC) —  generated more than $2.9 billion  in revenue from sports in fiscal 2020, according to federal tax records reported by  USA Today .
• This figure represents an increase of $11 million from 2019, a total that was reduced because of restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
• In the six years prior to 2020, the conferences recorded collective annual revenue increases averaging about $252 million.

What are name, image, likeness agreements for student athletes?

In recent years some college athletes at schools that field teams in the NCAA’s highest divisions have protested the restrictions placed on their ability to be compensated for third parties’ use of their name, image, and likeness. During the 2021 NCAA Division I basketball tournament known familiarly as March Madness, several players wore shirts bearing the hashtag “ #NotNCAAProperty ” to call attention to their objections.

Following the decision in NCAA v. Alston, the NCAA  enacted a temporary policy  allowing college athletes to enter into NIL agreements and other endorsements. The interim policy will be in place until federal legislation is enacted or new NCAA rules are created governing NIL contracts for college athletes.

• Student athletes are now able to sign endorsement deals, profit from their use of social media, and receive compensation for personal appearances and signing autographs.
• If they attend a school located in a state that has enacted NIL legislation, they are subject to any restrictions present in those state laws. As of mid-August 2021,  40 states had enacted laws  governing NIL contracts for college athletes.
• If their school is in a state without such a law, the college or university will determine its own NIL policies, although the NCAA prohibits pay-for-play and improper recruiting inducements.
• Student athletes are allowed to sign with sports agents and enter into agreements with school boosters so long as the deals abide by state laws and school policies.

Within weeks of the NCAA policy change, premier college athletes began signing NIL agreements with the potential to  earn them hundreds of thousands of dollars .

• Bryce Young, a sophomore quarterback for the University of Alabama, has nearly $1 million in endorsement deals.
• Quarterback Quinn Ewers decided to skip his last year of high school and enroll early at Ohio State University so he could make money from endorsements.
• A booster for the University of Miami pledged to pay each member of the school’s football team $500 for endorsing his business.

How will the change affect college athletes and their schools?

The  repercussions of court decisions and state laws  that allow college athletes to sign NIL agreements continue to be felt at campuses across the country, even though schools and athletes have received little guidance on how to manage the process.

• The top high school athletes in football, basketball, and other revenue-generating college sports will consider their potential for endorsement earnings while being recruited by various schools.
• The first NIL agreements highlight the disparity between what elite college athletes can expect to earn and what other athletes may realize. On one NIL platform, the average amount earned by Division I athletes was $471, yet one athlete made $210,000 in July alone.
• Most NIL deals at present are for small amounts, typically about $100 in free apparel, in exchange for endorsing a product on social media.

The presidents and other leaders of colleges and universities that field Division I sports have not yet responded to the changes in college athlete compensation other than to reiterate that they do not operate for-profit sports franchises. However, the NCAA requires that  Division I sports programs  be self-supporting, in contrast to sports programs at Division II and III institutions, which receive funding directly from their schools.

Many members of the Power 5 sports conferences have reported shortfalls in their operations, leading analysts to anticipate  major structural reforms  in the governing of college sports in the near future. The recent changes have also caused some people to believe the  NCAA is no longer relevant  or necessary.

How do highly competitive athletic scholarships work? According to the NCAA and Next College Student Athlete: $3.6 billion+ in athletic scholarships are awarded annually, and 180,000+ student athletes receive scholarships every year. Additionally, about 2% of athletes win a sports scholarship; college coaches award scholarships based on athletic ability; full scholarships are given for the top six college sports categories; and athletic scholarships are renewable each year.

The primary financial compensation student athletes receive is a scholarship that pays all or part of their tuition and other college-related expenses. Other forms of financial assistance available to student athletes include  grants, loans, and merit aid .

• Grants  are also called “gift aid,” because students are not expected to pay them back (with some exceptions, such as failing to complete the course of study for which the grant was awarded). Grants are awarded based on a student’s financial need. The  four types of grants  awarded by the U.S. Department of Education are  Federal Pell Grants ,  Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants ,  Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grants , and  Teacher Education Assistance for College or Higher Education (TEACH) Grants .
• Loans  are available to cover education expenses from government agencies and private banks. Students must pay the loans back over a specified period after graduating from or leaving school, including interest charges. EducationData.org estimates that as of 2020, the  average amount of school-related debt  owed by college graduates was $37,693.
• Merit aid  is awarded based on the student’s academic, athletic, artistic, and other achievements.  Athletic scholarships  are a form of merit aid that typically cover one academic year at a time and are renewable each year, although some are awarded for up to four years.

Full athletic scholarships vs. partial scholarships

When most people think of a student athlete scholarship, they have in mind a  full-ride scholarship  that covers nearly all college-related expenses. However, most student athletes receive partial scholarships that may pay tuition but not college fees and living expenses, for example.

A student athlete scholarship is a nonguaranteed financial agreement between the school and the student. The NCAA refers to full-ride scholarships awarded to student athletes entering certain Division I sports programs as  head count scholarships  because they are awarded per athlete. Conversely, equivalency sports divide scholarships among multiple athletes, some of whom may receive a full scholarship and some a partial scholarship. Equivalency awards are divided among a team’s athletes at the discretion of the coaches, as long as they do not exceed the allowed scholarships for their sport.

These Division I sports distribute scholarships per head count:

• Men’s football
• Men’s basketball
• Women’s basketball
• Women’s volleyball
• Women’s gymnastics
• Women’s tennis

These are among the Division I equivalency sports for men:

• Track and field
• Cross-country

These are the Division I equivalency sports for women:

• Field hockey

All Division II and National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) sports programs distribute scholarships on an equivalency basis. Division III sports programs do not award sports scholarships, although other forms of financial aid are available to student athletes at these schools.

How college athletic scholarships are awarded

In most cases, the coaching staff of a team determines which students will receive scholarships after spending time scouting and recruiting. The NCAA imposes  strict rules for recruiting student athletes  and provides a guide to help students  determine their eligibility  to play college sports.

Once a student has received a scholarship offer from a college or university, the person may sign a national letter of intent (NLI), which is a voluntary, legally binding contract between an athlete and the school committing the student to enroll and play the designated sport for that school only. The school agrees to provide financial aid for one academic year as long as the student is admitted and eligible to receive the aid.

After the student signs an NLI, other schools are prohibited from recruiting them. Students who have signed an NLI may ask the school to release them from the commitment; if a student attends a school other than the one with which they have an NLI agreement, they lose one full year of eligibility and must complete a full academic year at the new school before they can compete in their sport.

Very few student athletes are awarded a full scholarship, and even a “full” scholarship may not pay for all of a student’s college and living expenses. The  average Division I sports scholarship  in the 2019-20 fiscal year was about $18,000, according to figures compiled by ScholarshipStats.com, although some private universities had average scholarship awards that were more than twice that amount. However, EducationData.org estimates that the  average cost of one year of college  in the U.S. is $35,720. They estimate the following costs by type of school.

• The average annual cost for an in-state student attending a public four-year college or university is $25,615.
• Average in-state tuition for one year is $9,580, and out-of-state tuition costs an average of $27,437.
• The average cost at a private university is $53,949 per academic year, about $37,200 of which is tuition and fees.

Student athlete scholarship resources

• College Finance, “Full-Ride vs. Partial-Ride Athletic Scholarships”  — The college expenses covered by full athletic scholarships, how to qualify for partial athletic scholarships, and alternatives to scholarships for paying college expenses
• Student First Educational Consulting, “Athletic Scholarship Issues for 2021-2022 and Beyond”  — A discussion of the decline in the number of college athletic scholarships as schools drop athletic programs, and changes to the rules for college athletes transferring to new schools

According to College Strategic, Fansided, and Future of Working, reasons why paying college athletes is fair include: 1. Playing sports resembles a full-time job. 2. Sports take time away from studies. 3. Sports generate corporate profits. 4. Pay minimizes athlete corruption. 5. Pay provides spending money. 6. Playing sports creates injury risk. 7. Sports elevate school brands. 8. Pay motivates performance. 9. Scholarships reduce poverty.

There are many reasons why student athletes should be paid, but there are also valid reasons why student athletes should not be paid in certain circumstances. The lifting of NCAA restrictions on NIL agreements for college athletes has altered the landscape of major college sports but will likely have little or no impact on the majority of student athletes, who will continue to compete as true amateurs.

Reasons why student athletes should be paid

The argument raised most often in favor of allowing college athletes to receive compensation is that  colleges and universities profit  from the sports they play but do not share the proceeds with the athletes who are the ultimate source of that profit.

• In 2017 (the most recent year for which figures are available), the NCAA recorded $1.07 billion in revenue. The organization’s president earned $2.7 million in 2018, and nine other NCAA executives had salaries greater than $500,000 that year.
• Elite college coaches earn millions of dollars a year in salary, topped by University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban’s $9.3 million annual salary.
• Many of the athletes at leading football and basketball programs are from low-income families, and the majority will not become professional athletes.
• College athletes take great physical risks to play their sports and put their future earning potential at risk. In school they may be directed toward nonchallenging courses, which denies them the education their fellow students receive.

Reasons why student athletes should not be paid

Opponents to paying college athletes rebut these arguments by pointing to the primary role of colleges and universities: to provide students with a rewarding educational experience that prepares them for their professional careers. These are among the reasons they give for not paying student athletes.

• Scholarships are the fairest form of compensation for student athletes considering the financial strain that college athletic departments are under. Most schools in Division I, II, and III spend more money on athletics than they receive in revenue from the sports.
• College athletes who receive scholarships are presented with an opportunity to earn a valuable education that will increase their earning power throughout their career outside of sports. A Gallup survey of NCAA athletes found that  70% graduate in four years or fewer , compared to 65% of all undergraduate students.
• Paying college athletes will “ diminish the spirit of amateurism ” that distinguishes college sports from their professional counterparts. Limiting compensation for playing a sport to the cost of attending school avoids creating a separate class of students who are profiting from their time in school.

According to Best Colleges, Salarship, and CollegeVine, reasons why paying college athletes is less than ideal include: 1. Money may harm students. 2. Pay diminishes love of the game. 3. Pay deemphasizes academic purpose. 4. Secondary sports struggle. 5. Rich schools monopolize talent. 6. The financial benefit is marginal. 7. Setting salaries can be messy. 8. Academic requirements are substandard. 9. Other program budgets are reduced.

How do college athlete endorsements work?

Soon after the Supreme Court released its decision in NCAA v. Alston, the NCAA issued  guidelines for schools  that allow college athletes to make money from product endorsements, social media accounts, autographs, and other uses of their name, image, or likeness. This counters the NCAA’s longstanding opposition to student athletes profiting from endorsements. At present, implementation of the guidelines varies from school to school and state to state, which means athletes at some institutions may benefit more from NIL agreements than those attending other schools.

Several  NIL consultancy firms  are actively soliciting endorsements from college athletes in the aftermath of the rule change.

• Highly touted 19-year-old basketball recruit Hercy Miller, who joined the Tennessee State University basketball team in 2021, signed a $2 million endorsement deal with Web Apps America.
• University of Michigan quarterback Cade McNamara has entered into an endorsement deal with cryptocurrency company More Management that will  pay him in cryptocurrency .
• Twin sisters Haley and Hanna Cavinder of the Fresno State University basketball team have  marketing agreements  to promote Boost Mobile and Six Star Pro Nutrition to the 3.3 million followers of their TikTok account.
• Gable Steveson, a wrestler for the University of Minnesota, entered into an endorsement deal with the delivery service Gopuff; Steveson has 245,000 followers on Instagram and 30,000 on Twitter.

Despite the rush of high-profile college athletes signing endorsement deals, some educators and analysts express concern about the  impact of the endorsements  on schools, athletes, and college sports.

• Schools with more favorable endorsement rules may entice student athletes away from the schools they are currently attending.
• Likewise, states that have enacted endorsement laws that provide more earning potential for college athletes may see more top recruits choosing to attend schools in those states.
• The time college athletes spend meeting the requirements of their endorsement contracts could detract from study and practice time. This can have an adverse effect on their education and athletic careers — if they are unable to maintain grade requirements, for example, they may be disqualified from playing.
• If a college athlete’s performance in the sport declines, they may be less likely to attract and retain endorsement deals. While the NCAA has banned NIL agreements based on the athlete meeting specific performance criteria, the group acknowledges that a student’s athletic performance  may enhance their NIL value .
• Because of complicated contracts and tax laws, student athletes will have to rely on agents, advisers, and managers, which may leave them vulnerable to exploitation.

From the onset of intercollegiate sports, students have benefited from their participation by learning dedication to their sport, building relationships, and being part of a team. Sports allow students to acquire many important values, such as fair competition and physical and mental health. Education should remain at the forefront of all aspects of college, including sports, whether or not collegiate athletes are paid.

Infographic Source

Best Colleges, “Should College Athletes Be Paid?”

College Strategic, “Why College Athletes Should Be Paid”

CollegeVine, “Should College Athletes Be Paid? Pros and Cons”

Fansided, “64 Reasons College Athletes Need to Be Paid”

Future of Working, “17 Advantages and Disadvantages of Paying College Athletes”

NCAA, “Scholarships”

Next College Student Athlete, “What Are the Different Types of Offers I Could Get?”

Salarship, “Should College Athletes Be Paid: Pros and Cons”

Bring us your ambition and we’ll guide you along a personalized path to a quality education that’s designed to change your life.

Take Your Next Brave Step

Receive information about the benefits of our programs, the courses you'll take, and what you need to apply.

What are your chances of acceptance?

Calculate for all schools, your chance of acceptance.

Your chancing factors

Extracurriculars.

Should College Athletes Be Paid? Pros and Cons

Do you know how to improve your profile for college applications.

See how your profile ranks among thousands of other students using CollegeVine. Calculate your chances at your dream schools and learn what areas you need to improve right now — it only takes 3 minutes and it's 100% free.

Show me what areas I need to improve

What’s Covered:

History of the debate: should college athletes be paid, why college athletes should be paid.

• Why College Athletes Shouldn’t Be Paid
• Where To Get Your Essay Edited For Free

College athletics provide big benefits for many schools: they increase their profile, generate millions of dollars in revenue, and have led to one of the most contentious questions in sports— should college athletes be paid? Like other difficult questions, there are good arguments on both sides of the issue of paying college athletes. 

Historically, the debates over paying college athletes have only led to more questions, which is why it’s raged on for more than a century. Perhaps the earliest group to examine the quandary was Andrew Carnegie’s Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, which produced a mammoth study in 1929 of amateur athletes and the profits they generate for their universities. You don’t have to get past the preface to find questions that feel at home in today’s world:

• “What relation has this astonishing athletic display to the work of an intelligence agency like a university?”
• “How do students, devoted to study, find either the time or the money to stage so costly a performance?” 

Many of the questions asked way back in 1929 continue to resurface today, and many of them have eventually ended up seeking answers in court. The first case of note came in the 1950s, when the widow of Fort Lewis football player Ray Dennison took the college all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court in an effort to collect a death benefit after he was killed playing football. She lost the case, but future generations would have more success and have slowly whittled away at arguments against paying athletes. 

The most noticeable victory for athletes occurred in 2019, when California Governor, Gavin Newsom, signed legislation effectively allowing college athletes in the state to earn compensation for the use of their likeness, sign endorsement deals, and hire agents to represent them.

The court fights between college athletes and the NCAA continue today—while not exactly about payment, a case regarding whether or not schools can offer athletes tens of thousands of dollars in education benefits such as computers, graduate scholarships, tutoring, study abroad, and internships was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2021. A decision is expected in June 2021. 

There are a number of great reasons to pay college athletes, many of which will not only improve the lives of student-athletes, but also improve the product on the field and in the arena. 

College Athletes Deserve to Get Paid

In 2019, the NCAA reported $18.9 billion in total athletics revenue. This money is used to finance a variety of paid positions that support athletics at colleges and universities, including administrators, directors, coaches, and staff, along with other employment less directly tied to sports, such as those in marketing and media. The only people not receiving a paycheck are the stars of the show: the athletes. 

A testament to the disparate allocation of funds generated by college sports, of the $18.9 billion in athletics revenue in 2019, $3.6 billion went toward financial aid for student-athletes, and $3.7 billion was used for coaches’ compensation. A February 2020 USA Today article found that the average total pay for Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) college football head coaches in 2020-21 was $2.7 million. The highest-paid college football coach—the University of Alabama’s Nick Saban—earns $9.3 million a year and is the highest-paid public employee in the country. He is not alone, college coaches dominate the list of public employees with the largest salaries. 

If there’s money to provide college coaches with lavish seven-figure salaries (especially at public institutions), why shouldn’t there be funds to pay college athletes? 

Vital Support for Athletes 

A 2011 study published by the National College Players Association (NCPA) found that an overwhelming number of students on full athletics scholarships live below the federal poverty line—85% of athletes who live on campus and 86% athletes who live off-campus. “Full scholarship” itself is a misnomer; the same study found that the average annual scholarship for FBS athletes on “full” scholarships was actually $3,222. Find out more information about athletic scholarships . 

Paying student-athletes would help eliminate the need for these student-athletes to take out loans, burden their families for monetary support, or add employment to their already busy schedules. The NCAA limits in-season practice time to 20 hours a week, but a 2008 NCAA report shows that in-season student-athletes commonly spent upward of 30 and 40 hours a week engaged in “athletic activities.” 

Encouraged to Stay in College Longer

A report produced by the NCPA and Drexel University estimated the average annual fair market value of big-time college football and men’s basketball players between 2011 and 2015 was $137,357 and $289,031, respectively, and concluded that football players only receive about 17% of their fair market value, while men’s basketball players receive approximately 8% of theirs.

If colleges paid athletes even close to their worth, they would provide an incentive for the athletes to stay in college and earn degrees, rather than leaving college for a paycheck. This would also help keep top talents playing for college teams, improve the level of competition, and potentially lead to even higher revenue. On a side note, this would incentivize athletes to complete their degree, making them more employable after the end of their athletic career. 

Limit Corruption 

Just because there are rules prohibiting the compensation of college athletes doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, and over the years there have been numerous scandals. For example, in 2009, six ex-University of Toledo players were indicted in a point-shaving scheme , and in 2010, Reggie Bush returned his Heisman Trophy after allegations that he was given hundreds of thousands of dollars from sports agents while he played for USC.  

Paying college athletes will likely not totally eliminate corruption from college sports, but putting athletes in a less-precarious financial position would be a good step toward avoiding external influence, especially when you consider some of the players involved in the University of Toledo point-shaving scandal were paid as little as $500. 

It’s a Job (and a Dangerous One) 

As mentioned before, college athletes can put in upward of 40 hours a week practicing, training, and competing—being a “student-athlete” is a challenge when you’re devoting full-time hours to athletics. A New York Times study found a 0.20-point difference in average GPA between recruited male athletes and non-athletes. The difference is less pronounced among females, with non-athletes averaging a 3.24 GPA and recruited women athletes at 3.18.

It’s not just the time commitment that playing college athletics puts on student-athletes, it’s the risk to their health. A 2009-2010 CDC report found that more than 210,000 injuries are sustained by NCAA student-athletes each year. Full athletic scholarships are only guaranteed a year at a time, meaning student-athletes are one catastrophic injury away from potentially losing their scholarship. That is to say nothing of the lasting effects of an injury, like head traumas , which made up 7.4% of all injuries in college football players between 2004 and 2009.

Discover your chances at hundreds of schools

Our free chancing engine takes into account your history, background, test scores, and extracurricular activities to show you your real chances of admission—and how to improve them.

Why College Athletes Should Not Be Paid

There are a lot of great reasons why college athletes should be paid, but there are also some compelling reasons why college athletes should not be paid—and why not paying athletes is actually good for both the institutions and athletes. 

Compensation Conundrum 

One of the most common reasons cited against paying college players is compensation. Will all college athletes get compensated equally? For example, will the star quarterback receive the same amount as the backup catcher on the softball team? A 2014 CNBC article estimated that Andrew Wiggins, a University of Kansas forward (and soon-to-be first-overall draft pick), had a fair market value of around $1.6 million.

Similarly, will compensation take into account talent? Will the All-American point guard get the same amount as the captain of the swim team? In all likelihood, paying college athletes will benefit big-time, revenue-generating sports and hurt less popular sports. 

Eliminate Competitive Balance 

According to the NCAA , in 2019, the 65 Power Five schools exceeded revenue by $7 million, while all other Division I colleges had a $23 million deficit between expenses and revenue. If college athletes were to get paid, then large, well-funded schools such as those of the Power Five would be best positioned to acquire top talent and gain a competitive advantage. 

From a student’s point of view, paying college athletes will alter their college experience. No longer would fit, college, university reputation, and values factor into their college decisions—rather, choices would be made simply based on who was offering the most money. 

Professionalism vs. the Classroom

There’s a feeling that paying college athletes sends the wrong message and incentivizes them to focus on athletics instead of academics, when the reality is that very few college athletes will go on to play sports professionally. Just 1.6% of college football players will take an NFL field. NCAA men’s basketball players have even slimmer odds of playing in a major professional league ( 1.2% ), while the chances of a professional career are particularly grim for women basketball players, at a mere 0.8% . 

Although the odds of a college athlete turning pro are low, the probability of them earning a degree is high, thanks in part to the academic support athletes are given. According to data released by the NCAA, 90% of Division I athletes enrolled in 2013 earned a degree within six years. 

It Will End Less-Popular, Unprofitable Sports 

If colleges and universities pay their athletes, there is a fear that resources will only go to popular, revenue-generating sports. Programs like football and men’s basketball would likely benefit greatly, but smaller, unprofitable sports such as gymnastics, swimming and diving, tennis, track and field, volleyball, and wrestling could find themselves at best cash-strapped and, at the worst, cut altogether. 

It’s just not less-popular sports that paying athletes could threaten—women’s programs could also find themselves in the crosshairs of budget-conscious administrators. Keep in mind, it was just in March 2021 that the NCAA made national news for its unequal treatment of the men’s and women’s NCAA basketball tournaments. 

Financial Irresponsibility 

Former ESPN, and current FOX Sports, personality Colin Cowherd made news in 2014 when he voiced a popular argument against paying college athletes: financial irresponsibility. In Cowherd’s words:

“I don’t think paying all college athletes is great… Not every college is loaded, and most 19-year-olds [are] gonna spend it—and let’s be honest, they’re gonna spend it on weed and kicks! And spare me the ‘they’re being extorted’ thing. Listen, 90 percent of these college guys are gonna spend it on tats, weed, kicks, Xboxes, beer and swag. They are, get over it!”

A look at the professional ranks bolsters Cowherd’s argument about athletes’ frivolous spending. According to CNBC , 60% of NBA players go broke within five years of departing the league and 78% of former NFL players experience financial distress two years after retirement.

Writing an Essay on This? Where to Get Your Essay Edited for Free

Writing an essay on whether college athletes should or shouldn’t be paid? CollegeVine can help! Our peer review tool allows you to receive feedback and learn the strengths and weaknesses of your essay for free.  

Looking for more debate, speech, or essay topics? Check out these other CollegeVine articles for ideas: 

• 52 Argumentative Essays Ideas that are Actually Interesting
• 52 Persuasive Speech Topics That Are Actually Engaging
• 60 Debate Topics for High Schoolers

Related CollegeVine Blog Posts

More From Forbes

Why the public strongly supports paying college athletes.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

The Sportico/Harris poll shows a majority of people support players like Myan Williams of the Ohio ... [+] State Buckeyes earning money as student-athletes. (Photo by Gaelen Morse/Getty Images)

When student-athletes in 2021 were finally provided the chance to earn money from their name, image and likeness , some feared it would be the end of college sports as we knew it.

Fast forward two years, and the majority of Americans seem ready to let them bank even more bucks.

Nearly 70% of U.S. adults said college athletes should be able to receive direct compensation from their school when asked in a survey conducted this summer by Sportico and The Harris Poll.

“It’s about time,” sports attorney Luke Fedlam , founder of Advance NIL , said. “We have seen over the last 20 years the explosion in the commercialization of college sports. Look at the NCAA [March Madness] tournament. So much money is being made on student-athletes’ abilities. The idea that people are still coming around to is understanding and believing college athletes should receive compensation just makes sense.”

The poll, which surveyed 2,018 people nationally from Aug. 11–13, found 67% agreed college athletes should receive direct compensation from their universities, while 74% of respondents supported athletes’ ability to profit from NIL.

“I think it's good that athletes are getting their share,” Ohio University sports business professor B. David Ridpath said. “People are starting to come to the realization that not only is it inevitable, it's really the right thing to do.”

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

NIL became part of the sports landscape in June 2021 when the NCAA Board of Directors lifted NCAA restrictions on athlete payments for everything from sponsorships to personal appearances.

That same month, the Supreme Court voted unanimously that the NCAA can no longer limit education-related benefits that colleges offer athletes beyond tuition, including computers and internships. As part of what’s known as the Alston ruling, schools are now allowed to annually provide athletes with as much as $5,980 in education-related compensation .

Fedlam said the amount of money being poured into and flowing from collegiate sports has made it clear they are no longer purely about amateurism and love of competition. That means the move toward paying college athletes is an inevitability, not a debate.

“If college sports were solely about education and the benefits that could come from that, college sports would look entirely different,” Fedlam said. “Do we ruin college sports when we pay tens of millions to schools for broadcast rights, when March Madness makes $1 billion, when schools on the West Coast are aligning with Midwest and East Coast conferences to earn more compensation? That’s where sports have come.”

The survey also revealed 64% of respondents think college athletes should become university employees, an idea NCAA president Charlie Baker shot down at the April LEAD1 Association’s annual spring meeting, proclaiming, “I think student-athletes want to be student-athletes, and it’s up to us to figure out how to make that work for them in a variety of environments and in circumstances that are different.”

Democrats were much more in favor of direct compensation for college athletes than Republicans (78%-56%), while people who follow college sports favored the change at 78%, compared to 56% for those who do not follow sports closely.

More than 80% of respondents ages 18-41 supported athlete payments, while people over age 58 were just 48% in favor.

Ridpath said it sounds good in theory to allow athletes to be paid while in college, but to older fans more set in their ways, it is clearly far less accepted.

“The younger demographics are much more savvy than we were because they have access to more information,” he said. “This is the reality now.”

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

Survey shows most people want college athletes to be paid. You hear that, NCAA?

It's difficult for any fair-minded american to look at the vast amounts of money flowing into college sports and not see hypocrisy in its reliance on an unpaid labor force. .

When the legal threats to amateurism began to emerge about a dozen years ago, the NCAA’s main strategy was to claim that college sports would become less popular if athletes earned money. 

Administrators said it repeatedly in the media. They said it in court. They even threatened to take their ball and go home if schools had to pay the athletes who help generate hundreds of millions of dollars playing college football and basketball.

And now they all need to admit that they were wrong. Historically, spectacularly, wrong. 

A new national survey commissioned by Sportico in cooperation with The Harris Poll found that 67 percent of American adults believe college athletes should be paid — not just through name, image and likeness payments but in direct compensation from the school. 

Further, 64 percent of those surveyed believed athletes should be able to claim status as employees, and 59 percent were in favor of college athletes being able to bargain as a union. 

The numbers were relatively consistent across a variety of demographic groups. Whether man or woman, Democrat or Republican, white or Black, the notion of paying college athletes was supported by a majority of respondents. The only category registering less than 50 percent approval was respondents over the age of 58. 

This is only one poll and one data point in a long-running narrative, but the trends are clear. College sports officials would be wise to pay attention.

TOP 25 RANKINGS: A closer look at every team in college football's preseason coaches poll

A similar survey conducted in 2014 by the Washington Post and ABC News found that only 33 percent supported paying college athletes, including just 24 percent of white people. So when former NCAA president Mark Emmert testified during the O’Bannon vs. NCAA trial in 2014 that paying athletes would be “tantamount to converting it into minor league sports, and we know that in the U.S., minor league sports aren’t very successful either for fan support or for the fan experience,” he had at least some data to support it. 

But in the real world, there’s never been a link between the popularity of a sport and players being unable to make money. 

Golf and tennis exploded across the world once they became fully professionalized. The International Olympic Committee was staunchly against including professional athletes until the 1980s. Once they opened the floodgates, the Olympics only got bigger and more popular. And even amidst all the consternation over the messy implementation of NIL in college, there’s absolutely nothing in the data from ticket sales to television ratings to suggest that fans are being turned off because the star quarterback has a nice car to drive. 

It's been the same story time and time again throughout history: People like watching the games far more than they care about who’s getting paid to play them. 

So perhaps former Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany was slightly out of touch when he said during the O’Bannon trial: “These games are owned by the institution, and the notion of paying athletes for participation in these games is foreign to the notion of amateurism.”

Maybe Delany and his colleagues really believed that at the time — or had convinced themselves of it — because they had spent their entire careers in the amateur model and had no other frame of reference for what college sports would look like if the athletes had the same access to large amounts of money that coaches and administrators did. 

Or maybe they always knew they were full of it and used whatever rhetoric they could to preserve a dying system.

But you'd be laughed out of any room these days — and particularly a courtroom — if you tried to argue that college sports are widely consumed by the American public because players are unpaid students. 

Not only is it flatly untrue, as Sportico’s poll illustrates, but it is difficult for any fair-minded American to look at the vast amounts of money flowing into college sports and not see hypocrisy in its reliance on an unpaid labor force. 

We can have a good-faith argument about how sharing those revenues with college athletes would work and the variety of complications attached to things like Title IX, employment law and collective bargaining. The implementation might not be simple. But it wouldn’t offend the vast majority of fans, and it certainly wouldn’t lead to college sports turning into Triple-A baseball. 

In fact, when you look at how quickly the attitudes have shifted from being pretty strongly against paying college athletes to a significant majority in favor, it likely wouldn’t be controversial at all within a few years. 

The NCAA, which has built up a pretty bad track record in court trying to argue for amateurism over the last decade, simply can’t afford to ignore which way the wind is blowing on this. Even among some administrators, there is a growing resignation that revenue-sharing is the end game. Short of Congress giving the NCAA a lifeline, it’s probably the only way to end the stream of lawsuits that arise from a system that only restricts athletes’ earnings while everybody else’s go up, up and up. 

If you believe that’s an important principle to preserve in the NCAA model, go right ahead. But arguing that fans will revolt if athletes get paid is now officially a talking point from the Stone Age. 

The Aspen Institute

©2024 The Aspen Institute. All Rights Reserved

• 0 Comments Add Your Comment

The History Behind the Debate Over Paying NCAA Athletes

April 23, 2018  • Jon Solomon

The Aspen Institute Sports & Society Program held a conversation May 1 in Washington, DC titled “Future of College Sports: Reimagining Athlete Pay.” The discussion was livestreamed at as.pn/collegesportsfuture. The Aspen Institute discussion explored the implications if NCAA athletes could be paid by outside entities for use of their names, images, and likenesses, like any college student.

While speaking at the Aspen Institute in 2016, NCAA president Mark Emmert raised concerns that University of Texas swimmer Joseph Schooling had recently received a $740,000 bonus from Singapore for winning a gold medal at the 2016 Olympics. Schooling didn’t just win gold; he was Singapore’s first Olympic gold medalist and beat the great Michael Phelps.

This payment was perfectly permissible under NCAA rules, which since 2001 have allowed US Olympians to compete in college while pocketing tens of thousands of dollars (and sometimes six figures) from the United States Olympic Committee for winning gold, silver, or bronze. The NCAA added an exception in 2015 to also allow international athletes to receive bonuses.

Still, a college swimmer making nearly three-quarters of a million dollars concerned some NCAA members because, Emmert said, “that’s a little different than 15 grand for the silver medal for the US of A. … The members at that time hadn’t anticipated this phenomenon of like the Singaporean kid getting paid a very large amount.”

Never mind that NCAA rules allow two-sport athletes to be paid professionals in one sport while competing in a different college sport, such as Kyle Parker’s $1.4 million baseball signing bonus while serving as Clemson’s quarterback in 2010. Or that tennis players can receive up to $10,000 per year in prize money (and additional cash on a per-event basis) before or during college. Or that college football players can receive bowl gifts up to $550 in value, which can involve players selecting high-tech electronics from a gift suite or receiving a Visa gift card. Or that schools have student-assistance funds to help athletes financially, including paying five-figure insurance policies for elite athletes who want to protect their professional futures.

Emmert’s description of his membership’s concerns about the swimming bonus reflects the never-ending definition of NCAA amateurism. Amateurism is whatever the NCAA says amateurism is at any particular moment.

As US District Judge Claudia Wilken wrote in her 2014 ruling in the Ed O’Bannon v. NCAA antitrust lawsuit case against the NCAA over the commercialized use of players’ names, images and likenesses: “The association’s current rules demonstrate that, even today, the NCAA does not necessarily adhere to a single definition of amateurism.”

The challenges are adding up for the NCAA both in the courtroom and in the court of public opinion. Speaking at a 2017 meeting of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, Emmert released internal NCAA polling showing that among all Americans, 79 percent say major universities value money ahead of college athletes.

“I can’t think of anything 79 percent of Americans agree to,” Emmert said, “but they agree to that.”

Such is the state of college sports. How America’s college sports system got here – the only country in the world to attach a highly-commercialized, multibillion-dollar industry to higher education, thus resulting in ongoing legal challenges and public criticism – is a long story. Three key events help trace the journey.

1. Why NCAA athletes are called student-athletes

The term “student-athlete” is ingrained in the college sports vernacular. NCAA-organized press conferences involve a moderator seeking questions for any of the “student-athletes,” a term that historically comes to define the NCAA’s perceived moral authority and its justification for existence.

It’s a term rooted in legal calculations. Walter Byers, the NCAA’s first executive director, created “student-athlete” in the 1950s to help the NCAA fight against workmen’s compensation insurance claims for injured football players.

“The student-athlete was a term used to try to offset these tendencies for state agencies or other governmental departments to consider a grant-in-aid holder” to be an employee, Byers said in court testimony during the 1990s. Soon, the term “student-athlete” became embedded in all NCAA rules and interpretations.

“Student-athlete” first surfaced when the widow of Ray Dennison, who died from a head injury in 1955 while playing in Colorado for the Fort Lewis A&M Aggies, filed for workmen’s compensation death benefits. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with the defendant that Dennison’s widow was not eligible for benefits because the college was “not in the football business.”

“The term student-athlete was deliberately ambiguous,” Pulitzer Prize-winning author Taylor Branch wrote in The Atlantic in 2011. “College players were not students at play (which might understate their athletic obligations), nor were they just athletes in college (which might imply they were professionals). That they were high-performance athletes meant they could be forgiven for not meeting the academic standards of their peers; that they were students mean they did not have to be compensated, ever, for anything more than the cost of their studies. Student-athlete became the NCAA’s signature term, repeated constantly in and out of courtrooms.”

Athletes may be receiving degrees, but many examples show that pockets of athletes are not receiving a quality education.

The student-athlete defense helped the NCAA win – and avoid – numerous liability cases through the years. The most notable win was a lawsuit brought by former Texas Christian University (TCU) running back Kent Waldrep, who was paralyzed in a 1974 football game against the University of Alabama. TCU stopped paying his medical bills after nine months and the Waldrep family coped for years on charity.

Shortly after NCAA Division I schools began carrying catastrophic insurance for football players in 1991, Waldrep sued. He claimed he was an employee of TCU at the time of his injury and covered by workers compensation laws. Waldrep initially won $70 a week for life and medical expenses dating to the accident, but TCU’s insurance carrier appealed.

Finally, in 2000, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Waldrep was not an employee because he and TCU intended for him to participate in sports as a student. As part of its decision, the Texas Supreme Court wrote that a basic purpose of the NCAA was to make the student-athlete an integral part of the student body, and cited the definition of an amateur student-athlete from the NCAA bylaws: “one who engaged in athletics for the education, physical, mental, and social benefits he derives therefrom, and to whom athletics is an avocation.”

The power of the student-athlete label has played out in legal circles and in the public narrative. Today, the NCAA promotes that more than 460,000 student-athletes compete in 24 sports per year, and more than eight in 10 student-athletes will earn a bachelor’s degree. The value of a college degree is viewed very favorably by many Americans, especially as tuition costs continue to skyrocket that causes students to carry college-loan debt well into adulthood.

Yet the money keeps growing in college sports. The combined revenue for the five major conferences (SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, Pac-12) increased by 266 percent from 2005-15, according to the Knight Commission. In 2015, the 53 public schools from the five major conferences paid their football coaching staffs (530 individuals) a combined $405.5 million, compared to $179.8 million in scholarships to their football players (4,979 individuals).

In recent years, the NCAA changed some rules to allow new benefits for athletes. Schools can expand the value of athletic scholarships to include cash stipends of a couple thousand dollars to cover athletes’ full cost of attendance. The NCAA now lets schools provide unlimited meals to athletes. The Pac-12 in 2014 became the first conference to guarantee athletes who are injured in college competition will have medical expenses covered up to four years by the school; the other four major conferences recently agreed to a minimum two-year standard for medical expenses covered after college.

But the criticism for the NCAA hasn’t subsided. The NCAA’s academic mission has increasingly been called into question. Athletes may be receiving degrees, but many examples show that pockets of athletes are not receiving a quality education. Some of them essentially major in eligibility – that is, they take (and are sometimes directed to) easier majors/courses in order to stay on the field.

The most glaring example occurred when the University of North Carolina was found by outside parties to have organized fake classes that enabled dozens of athletes to gain and maintain their eligibility. In a ruling last year that caused considerable confusion and frustration among NCAA members, the NCAA did not penalize North Carolina. The NCAA said no association rules were broken because the fraudulent classes were not available exclusively to athletes; other students had access to the courses, too. An independent report commissioned by North Carolina found that of the 3,100 students who took the fake classes over 18 years, 47.4 percent were athletes.

The North Carolina scandal also has played out in state and federal court, where the NCAA argued that it “did not voluntarily assume a legal duty to ensure the academic integrity of courses offered by its member institutions.” The NCAA enforcement model “creates no legal duty to prevent NCAA members from violating NCAA rules,” the association wrote.

North Carolina avoided NCAA penalties by essentially arguing that the NCAA should stay out of irregularities in college courses. This caused many critics to say that the NCAA must decide whether it’s going to continue to be involved in other academic matters, such as:

• Approving or withholding initial NCAA eligibility for players based on their high school transcript and curriculum
• Progress toward degree requirements for college athletes to stay eligible
• Penalties against schools, including postseason bans, if individual teams don’t meet Academic Progress Rate benchmarks showing their players are progressing toward a degree

“Maybe we’ve just reached the point where if a university is going to cheat academically, the public needs to look to the university and university leadership and say, ‘Does winning mean that much to you?’” retired North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr, co-counsel in a lawsuit against the NCAA involving the North Carolina scandal, told CBSSports.com in 2016. “Instead, they turn to this outside organization with inconsistent standards and limited resources.”

If the NCAA ever removed itself entirely from academics and became solely an organizer of sporting events, that could pose a significant threat to the association’s current nonprofit model. The entire enterprise is designed around the notion that providing access to an education is sufficient compensation to players for their participation in a multibillion-dollar industry.

After all, the NCAA tells us, these players are student-athletes.

2. 1984 Supreme Court decision shifted the power to conferences

Perhaps more than anyone else, the late Supreme Court Justice Byron “Whizzer” White saw the challenges coming for the NCAA. White essentially predicted so much of this – the commercialization, the defections for TV cash, the NCAA’s struggles to protect amateurism – when he wrote the dissenting opinion in the landmark NCAA v. Oklahoma Board of Regents case that ended the NCAA’s monopoly over college football television contracts.

“By mitigating what appears to be a clear failure of the free market to serve the ends and goals of higher education,” White wrote in 1984, “the NCAA ensures the continued availability of a unique and valuable product, the very existence of which might well be threatened by unbridled competition in the economic sphere.”

The NCAA once controlled football television – who got the exposure on TV and how the money was distributed to schools. The University of Oklahoma and University of Georgia sued to change the power structure. An appellate court and the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision that the NCAA’s control over football TV contracts was illegal.

The Supreme Court handed down a 7-2 decision against the NCAA. The only justice joining White in dissension was William Rehnquist. White warned that the court was making a mistake by “subjugating the NCAA’s educational goals … to the purely competitive commercialism of [an] ‘every school for itself’ approach to television contract bargaining.”

After the decision, schools began merging into larger conferences and ended the once-common practice of independent status. Conferences soon held the power in football – and as football’s popularity grew in America, the sport became the financial engine for athletic departments. Conferences began to negotiate lucrative media rights deals, stage championship games and secure their own bowl games, and ultimately produce college football’s first national championship format.

Today, the conferences now stage the College Football Playoff, which is worth about $470 million annually. Many of them have their own television network. During fiscal year 2017, the SEC distributed on average $41 million to each of its 14 universities, according to USA Today. Ten years ago, the SEC average payout per school was $11 million. The Big Ten Conference is projected to exceed $50 million in its average payout.

There’s another legacy of the 1984 ruling: Buried within the NCAA’s landmark loss was a Supreme Court gift that kept on giving for 30 more years. In the middle of the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens dropped in limited language that states “athletes must not be paid”:

“… moreover, the NCAA seeks to market a particular brand of football – college football. The identification of this ‘product’ with an academic tradition differentiates college football from and makes it more popular than professional sports to which it might otherwise be comparable, such as, for example, minor league baseball. In order to preserve the character and quality of the ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class, and the like.”

There were just three sentences in a 19,000-word brief. The topic (player compensation) had nothing to do with the issue at hand (football TV contracts). No one testified about player compensation, and Stevens didn’t appear to give much rigorous thought to what he was writing.

Stevens didn’t define what “paid” means. Does that mean salaries from the school, endorsements from outside entities, or checks written as part of scholarship agreements?

Stevens didn’t explain what “required to attend class” means. Does that mean a part-time student or full-time student, or perhaps attend only one class? How would Stevens interpret “required to attend class” today when compared to how frequently NCAA athletes miss school to travel to play in games? In a 2015 survey, Division I men’s basketball players said they spent an average of 1.7 days a week away from campus and missed 2.2 classes. The Wall Street Journal found that eight top-25 men’s basketball teams in 2018 traveled an average of more than 42 days during the season.

Though NCAA v. Oklahoma Board of Regents wasn’t about compensation for college athletes, Stevens’ five words – “athletes must not be paid” – became a valuable source for many NCAA legal victories in future years. That changed when the O’Bannon case challenged the NCAA’s restrictions preventing football and men’s basketball players from being paid for the licensing use of their names, images, and likenesses (NILs).

Wilken, the judge in O’Bannon v. NCAA , concluded that while NCAA v. Oklahoma Board of Regents “gives the NCAA ‘ample latitude’ to adopt rules preserving ‘the revered tradition of amateurism in college sports’ … it does not stand for the sweeping proposition that student-athletes must be barred, both during their college years and forever thereafter, from receiving any monetary compensation for the commercial use of their names, images and likenesses.”

Andy Coats, the lawyer for Oklahoma and Georgia in the 1984 Supreme Court case, said it was only a matter of time before players sought a slice of the TV pie.

“They’re saying, ‘Look, we’re generating this money either by our play or the fact you take my image and sell it, and it’s not fair,’” Coats told CBSSports.com in 2014.

The money grew too big. The time had come for legal challenges on behalf of the players.

Tom McMillen, who oversees the athletic director association for the NCAA’s largest division, sums up a critical question this way: If schools could pay players, who would athletic directors predominantly pay – the players or the coaches? Surveys show ADs don’t currently support constraining coaches’ salaries, McMillen said.

“The system has allowed coaches’ compensation to explode so it’s a fair question,” McMillen said. “If that hadn’t happened, I think the pressure on paying athletes would be far less today. You can’t have a market place where one side wins and another side doesn’t win. You can’t expect one side to be constrained forever. I said that in my book in 1991. I think it holds even more true today.”

3. Impact of Ed O’Bannon v. NCAA

The next chapter of challenges against the NCAA is still being written. The results will be based in part on the O’Bannon ruling – the legal precedent set, how college athletes are more cognizant of the money around them, and the public’s opinion about amateurism and what it even means.

The O’Bannon case ended up with victories for both sides. The plaintiffs won a decision that certain NCAA amateurism rules violate federal antitrust law. The court determined that those rules constituted an anti-competitive conspiracy by the NCAA schools and conferences to deny men’s basketball and football players monetary value for their NILs. This potentially leaves the NCAA vulnerable for more antitrust challenges.

On the other hand, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Wilken’s remedy to the violations: Allow schools, if they so desire, to pay players up to $5,000 per year while they are in college with payment coming after they leave school. Rejecting the remedy was a win for the NCAA. Today, the NCAA clings to a new definition of amateurism through the O’Bannon appellate decision, which tied educational expenses to athlete compensation.

“The difference between offering student-athletes education-related compensation and offering them cash sums untethered to educational expenses is not minor; it is a quantum leap,” two Ninth Circuit judges wrote in 2015.

Legal threats continue against the NCAA. Two lawsuits that challenge the NCAA’s current compensation limits for athletes continue – including the Martin Jenkins case led by attorney Jeffrey Kessler, who brought free agency to the NFL – envision an NCAA in which conferences and/or schools would be free to make their own independent determinations about how to fairly compensate athletes.

The ongoing NCAA college basketball scandal showed that under-the-table payments to players by coaches, financial advisors, and shoe companies are common in the sport.

Wilken, the judge in O’Bannon, recently ordered the lawsuits to trial starting Dec. 3. She essentially left the NCAA with only two arguments to use at trial: The notion that fans are drawn to college football and basketball “in part due to their perception of amateurism,” and the idea that “paying student-athletes would detract from the integration of academics and athletics in the campus community.” The results of the trial, and inevitable appeals, could dramatically reshape the NCAA.

According to McMillen, 79 percent of athletic directors in the NCAA’s highest football subdivision support players making money off their name for non-athletic related activities, and 26 percent favor giving players the right for athletic-related pursuits. Emmert, the NCAA president, has said the Olympic model – athletes receiving sponsor money in exchange for use of their name, image and likeness – is deserving of serious consideration inside the context of college sports.

“I hate to say this, I think the plaintiff lawyers are slowing this down,” McMillen said. “If you didn’t have a court case now, I think college sports could have addressed this. Now, the lawyers will say they’ve made progress because of the court cases. It’s what comes first – the chicken or the egg? But when a court case’s fundamental principle is tethered to education, it’s a slippery slope no one will touch right now. I think the ADs are more sympathetic to (players making money off their NIL) provided some of their concerns are addressed. They don’t want it to be an abusive recruiting tool.”

The NCAA’s history has been to legally fight most attempts to increase benefits for athletes. The NCAA fought two court cases over expanding the value of the traditional athletic scholarship to include additional money that covers miscellaneous costs of attending college. Now, thousands of NCAA athletes who received traditional scholarships, rather than the new cost-of-attendance version, will be compensated for the difference. Last year, the NCAA and 11 major conferences settled for $208.7 million in the Shawne Alston lawsuit, which was impacted by the O’Bannon decision.

The ongoing NCAA college basketball scandal brought by federal prosecutors reflected, not surprisingly, that under-the-table payments to players by coaches, financial advisors and shoe companies are common in the sport. Three criminal cases are tied to the FBI investigation, which has resulted in 10 arrests, including charges against assistant basketball coaches at Auburn, Oklahoma State, Arizona and Southern California.

According to a Yahoo! Sports report in February, federal documents show an underground recruiting operation that could create NCAA rules issues for at least 20 Division I basketball programs – including Duke, North Carolina, Texas, Kentucky, Michigan State, Southern California, and Alabama – and more than 25 players. The amounts of impermissible benefits reported by Yahoo! Sports for one sports agency ranged from $70 for a lunch with a player’s parents to tens of thousands of dollars and loans to a former North Carolina State player.

“These allegations, if true, point to systematic failures that must be fixed and fixed now if we want college sports in America,” Emmert said in a statement in February 2018. “Simply put, people who engage in this kind of behavior have no place in college sports. They are an affront to all those who play by the rules.”

Yet the reality is value does exist for some players above their athletic scholarship. That was highlighted in the O’Bannon case. A vice president of videogame maker Electronic Arts Sports testified that his company wants to pay players for the right to use their NILs in popular NCAA videogames that have been discontinued. EA Sports previously used the likeness of players without their permission, resulting in a $60 million settlement with plaintiffs. The average payout was expected to be around $1,600, with some players receiving several thousand dollars depending on how frequently their likeness appeared in the videogame.

A slight majority of American adults (52 percent) still believe a full scholarship is adequate compensation for a college athlete, according to a 2017 nationwide poll by The Washington Post and the University of Massachusetts Lowell. The racial divide was noteworthy: 54 percent of black Americans support paying NCAA athletes based on revenue they generate, whereas only 31 percent of white Americans support the concept.

Gaining public traction is the idea of allowing players to make money if their NIL is sold through merchandise (66 percent of Americans are in favor). A racial gap exists here as well: 89 percent of blacks say athletes should be paid for use of their NIL, while 60 percent of whites are in favor.

Some proponents of paying players argue for a free market that would reallocate the money flowing to coaches, administrators and facility upgrades to the athletes. Others argue for Congress to provide a limited antitrust exemption for college athletic departments so they could impose caps on coach pay and other athletic spending in exchange for athletes to be guaranteed more benefits, including money through use of their NIL.

“My own personal view: There could be ways to do licensing with players and make sure the companies are legit,” McMillen said. “You could set up an independent, voluntary clearinghouse where the licensing staff would negotiate on behalf of all the student-athletes, much like they do in the pros. In taking this step to help elite student-athletes, like Olympic athletes can do today, it might help reduce the ever-growing pressure for universities to pay student-athletes, and that would undermine the whole college sports model.”

In 2014, Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick made the rare public case by an AD that college sports could manage group licensing for athletes to be paid immediately. He argued that the NCAA’s problems stem from years of rules that differentiate athletes from the general student body, such as not allowing players to make money off their own name.

“You could have a group-licensing approach and say, OK, this group licensee can do a deal with EA Sports for student-athlete image and likeness, and we’ll go to EA Sports and negotiate it for all of the student-athletes,” Swarbrick told CBSSports.com. “Here’s what it’s worth if you wear the jersey in the EA Sports video(game) and here’s what it’s worth if you don’t. You get a market read on it and you distribute it based on the way all group licenses work.”

Nothing in the NCAA’s history suggests it would proactively take such an approach. Allowing players to be paid by outside entities might require a court ruling, federal legislation and/or a player boycott. Big 12 Conference commissioner Bob Bowlsby predicted in 2015 that the day will come when players decide not to play in a major college sporting event.

The Olympics once passionately believed in the evolving definition of amateurism. Paid professional athletes were not allowed. During the 1980s, the move toward professionalism gradually gained full steam sport by sport over several years. The change was aided in part by the suspicion that athletes from some Eastern Bloc nations were already professionals anyway through full-time support and training by their governments.

The public hasn’t stopped watching the Olympics with professionals. Making money through endorsements while being good at a sport doesn’t seem to hurt interest in the Olympics, which once had the most stringent definition of amateurism. In 1960, athletes who simply had decided to turn pro were no longer amateurs under Olympic rules.

College sports is gradually changing amateurism definitions, too. Times change, as reflected by some NCAA members’ concerns in 2016 about allowing an Olympian to get paid $740,000 while still competing in college. Some money is OK, in the view of NCAA members, but where’s the limit?

If swimmers and gymnasts can be paid for winning at the Olympics, why not basketball and football players for other forms of outside compensation? If $740,000 is deemed too much for Schooling to accept from Singapore while swimming for the University of Texas, why would American swimmer Katie Ledecky making $115,000 from the Olympics be OK to swim at Stanford? And for that matter, since Ledecky made $115,000 from Olympic success, why did NCAA rules prevent her from making endorsement money and cause her to turn pro early?

Once a line has been crossed to pay athletes, what makes one amount acceptable and another unacceptable?

That’s NCAA amateurism – a floating definition that’s always evolving, consistently inconsistent, and forever under scrutiny.

Jon Solomon is editorial director of the Aspen Institute Sports & Society Program. He was an award-winning college sports reporter for 18 years, most recently at CBSSports.com.

Related Posts

April 17, 2023 Sports & Society Program

August 29, 2022 Tom Farrey

The best of the Institute, right in your inbox.

Sign up for our email newsletter

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

The Case for Paying College Athletes

The case against paying college athletes, the era of name, image, and likeness (nil) profiting, why should college athletes be paid, is it illegal for college athletes to get paid, what percentage of americans support paying college athletes, the bottom line, should college athletes be paid.

The Case For and Against

Should college athletes be able to make money from their sport? When the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) was founded in 1906, the organization’s answer was a firm “no,” as it sought to “ensure amateurism in college sports.”

Despite the NCAA’s official stance, the question has long been debated among college athletes, coaches, sports fans, and the American public. The case for financial compensation saw major developments in June 2021, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA cannot limit colleges from offering student-athletes “education-related benefits.”

In response, the NCAA issued an interim policy stating that its student-athletes were permitted to profit off their name, image, and likeness (NIL) , but not to earn a salary. This policy will remain in place until a more “permanent solution” can be found in conjunction with Congress.

Meanwhile, the landscape continues to shift, with new cases, decisions, and state legislation being brought forward. College athletes are currently permitted to receive “cost of attendance” stipends (up to approximately $6,000), unlimited education-related benefits, and awards. A 2023 survey found that 67% of U.S. adults favor paying college athletes with direct compensation.

Key Takeaways

• Despite the NCAA reporting nearly $1.3 billion in revenue in 2023, student-athletes are restricted to limited means of compensation.
• Although college sports regularly generate valuable publicity and billions of dollars in revenue for schools, even the highest-grossing college athletes tend to see only a small fraction of this.
• One argument for paying college athletes is the significant time commitment that their sport requires, which can impact their ability to earn income and divert time and energy away from academic work.
• Student-athletes may face limited prospects after college for a variety of reasons, including a high risk of injury, fierce competition to enter professional leagues, and lower-than-average graduation rates.
• The developing conversation around paying college athletes must take into account the practical challenges of determining and administering compensation, as well as the potential impacts on players and schools.

There are numerous arguments in support of paying college athletes, many of which focus on ameliorating the athletes’ potential risks and negative impacts. Here are some of the typical arguments in favor of more compensation.

Financial Disparity

College sports generate billions of dollars in revenue for networks, sponsors, and institutions (namely schools and the NCAA). There is considerable money to be made from advertising and publicity, historically, most of which has not benefited those whose names, images, and likenesses are featured within it.

Of the 2019 NCAA Division I revenues ($15.8 billion in total), only 18.2% was returned to athletes through scholarships, medical treatment, and insurance. Additionally, any other money that goes back to college athletes is not distributed equally. An analysis of players by the National Bureau of Economic Research found major disparities between sports and players.

Nearly 50% of men’s football and basketball teams, the two highest revenue-generating college sports, are made up of Black players. However, these sports subsidize a range of other sports (such as men’s golf and baseball, and women’s basketball, soccer, and tennis) where only 11% of players are Black and which also tend to feature players from higher-income neighborhoods. In the end, financial redistribution between sports effectively funnels resources away from students who are more likely to be Black and come from lower-income neighborhoods toward those who are more likely to be White and come from higher-income neighborhoods.

Exposure and Marketing Value

Colleges’ finances can benefit both directly and indirectly from their athletic programs. The “Flutie Effect,” named after Boston College quarterback Doug Flutie, is an observed phenomenon whereby college applications and enrollments seem to increase after an unexpected upset victory or national football championship win by that college’s team. Researchers have also suggested that colleges that spend more on athletics may attract greater allocations of state funding and boost private donations to institutions.

Meanwhile, the marketing of college athletics is valued in the millions to billions of dollars. In 2023, the NCAA generated nearly $1.3 billion in revenue, $945.1 million of which came from media rights fees. In 2022, earnings from March Madness represented nearly 90% of the NCAA’s total revenue. Through this, athletes give schools major exposure and allow them to rack up huge revenues, which argues for making sure the players benefit, too.

Opportunity Cost, Financial Needs, and Risk of Injury

Because participation in college athletics represents a considerable commitment of time and energy, it necessarily takes away from academic and other pursuits, such as part-time employment. In addition to putting extra financial pressure on student-athletes, this can impact athletes’ studies and career outlook after graduation, particularly for those who can’t continue playing after college, whether due to injury or the immense competition to be accepted into a professional league.

Earning an income from sports and their significant time investment could be a way to diminish the opportunity cost of participating in them. This is particularly true in case of an injury that can have a long-term effect on an athlete’s future earning potential.

Arguments against paying college athletes tend to focus on the challenges and implications of a paid-athlete system. Here are some of the most common objections to paying college athletes.

Existing Scholarships

Opponents of a paid-athlete system tend to point to the fact that some college athletes already receive scholarships , some of which cover the cost of their tuition and other academic expenses in full. These are already intended to compensate athletes for their work and achievements.

Financial Implications for Schools

One of the main arguments against paying college athletes is the potential financial strain on colleges and universities. The majority of Division I college athletics departments’ expenditures actually surpass their revenues, with schools competing for players by hiring high-profile coaches, constructing state-of-the-art athletics facilities, and offering scholarships and awards.

With the degree of competition to attract talented athletes so high, some have pointed out that if college athletes were to be paid a salary on top of existing scholarships, it might unfairly burden those schools that recruit based on the offer of a scholarship.

‘Amateurism’ and the Challenges of a Paid-Athlete System

Historically, the NCAA has sought to promote and preserve a spirit of “amateurism” in college sports, on the basis that fans would be less interested in watching professional athletes compete in college sports, and that players would be less engaged in their academic studies and communities if they were compensated with anything other than scholarships.

The complexity of determining levels and administration of compensation across an already uneven playing field also poses a practical challenge. What would be the implications concerning Title IX legislation, for example, since there is already a disparity between male and female athletes and sports when it comes to funding, resources, opportunities, compensation, and viewership?

Another challenge is addressing the earnings potential of different sports (as many do not raise revenues comparable to high-profile sports like men’s football and basketball) or of individual athletes on a team. Salary disparities would almost certainly affect team morale and drive further competition between schools to bid for the best athletes.

In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA violated antitrust laws with its rules around compensation, holding that the NCAA’s current rules were “more restrictive than necessary” and that the NCAA could no longer “limit education-related compensation or benefits” for Division I football and basketball players.

In response, the NCAA released an interim policy allowing college athletes to benefit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL) , essentially providing the opportunity for players to profit off their personal brand through social media and endorsement deals. States then introduced their own rules around NIL, as did individual schools, whose coaches or compliance departments maintain oversight of NIL deals and the right to object to them in case of conflict with existing agreements.

Other court cases against the NCAA have resulted in legislative changes that now allow students to receive “cost of attendance” stipends up to a maximum of around $6,000 as well as unlimited education-related benefits and awards.

The future of NIL rules and student-athlete compensation remains to be seen. According to the NCAA, the intention is to “develop a national law that will help colleges and universities, student-athletes, and their families better navigate the name, image, and likeness landscape.” However, no timeline has been specified as of yet.

Common arguments in support of paying college athletes tend to focus on players’ financial needs, their high risk of injury, and the opportunity cost they face (especially in terms of academic achievement, part-time work, and long-term financial and career outlook). Proponents of paying college athletes also point to the extreme disparity between the billion-dollar revenues of schools and the NCAA and current player compensation.

Although the NCAA once barred student-athletes from earning money from their sport, legislation around compensating college athletes is changing. In 2021, the NCAA released an interim policy permitting college athletes to profit off their name, image, and likeness (NIL) through social media and endorsement and sponsorship deals. However, current regulations and laws vary by state.

In 2023, a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults found that 67% of respondents were in favor of paying college athletes with direct compensation. Sixty-four percent said they supported athletes’ rights to obtain employee status, and 59% supported their right to collectively bargain as a labor union .

Although the NCAA is under growing pressure to share its billion-dollar revenues with the athletes it profits from, debate remains around whether, how, and how much college athletes should be paid. Future policy and legislation will need to take into account the financial impact on schools and athletes , the value of exposure and marketing, pay equity and employment rights, pay administration, and the nature of the relationship between college athletes and the institutions they represent.

NCAA. “ History .”

Marquette Sports Law Review. “ Weakening Its Own Defense? The NCAA’s Version of Amateurism ,” Page 260 (Page 5 of PDF).

U.S. Supreme Court. “ National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston et al. ”

NCAA. “ NCAA Adopts Interim Name, Image and Likeness Policy .”

PBS NewsHour. “ Analysis: Who Is Winning in the High-Revenue World of College Sports? ”

Sportico. “ 67% of Americans Favor Paying College Athletes: Sportico/Harris Poll .”

Sportico. “ NCAA Took in Record Revenue in 2023 on Investment Jump .”

National Bureau of Economic Research. “ Revenue Redistribution in Big-Time College Sports .”

Appalachian State University, Walker College of Business. “ The Flutie Effect: The Influence of College Football Upsets and National Championships on the Quantity and Quality of Students at a University .”

Grand Canyon University. “ Should College Athletes Be Paid? ”

Flagler College Gargoyle. “ Facing Inequality On and Off the Court: The Disparities Between Male and Female Athletes .”

U.S. Department of Education. “ Title IX and Sex Discrimination .”

Congressional Research Service Reports. “ National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston and the Debate Over Student Athlete Compensation .”

NCSA College Recruiting. “ NCAA Name, Image, Likeness Rule .”

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Student Opinion

Should College Athletes Be Paid?

By Jeremy Engle

• Feb. 26, 2019

Have you heard of Zion Williamson?

Some are calling him the next LeBron James. At 6 feet 7 inches and 285 pounds, Williamson, a freshman basketball player at Duke University, is impressing fans with his combination of size, strength and leaping ability. Many are captivated by his thrilling monster dunks .

On Feb. 20, less than a minute into a nationally televised game against archrival North Carolina, Williamson injured his right knee when one of his Nike sneakers “exploded.” ( Watch here to see what happened to the shoe.) With March Madness less than a month away, his injury has revived an age-old question: Should college athletes be paid?

In “ Zion Williamson’s Injury Has Some Saying He Should Quit Duke ,” Marc Tracy writes:

A freakish injury to Duke’s Zion Williamson, college basketball’s best and most prominent player, only seconds into a game on Wednesday night has instantaneously renewed a debate about the contradictions of the sport’s economic foundation, shining a harsh new light on the N.C.A.A.’s policy of amateurism and the influence of billion-dollar shoe companies. It also raised an important question: Should Williamson ever suit up for another college game? Fans were asking the question. An N.B.A. player was, too, even before Duke announced that Williamson had sprained his right knee in the fall. “It’s a legitimate question,” said Ramogi Huma, the founder and president of the College Athletes Players Association, an advocate for players’ rights. In the first minute of top-ranked Duke’s game against its archrival, eighth-ranked North Carolina, Williamson, a 6-fotot-7, 285-pound forward whose game is a blend of quickness and power, pivoted with the ball near the free-throw line. As he planted a foot to reverse direction, his left sneaker collapsed and tore apart from the sheer torque of the move. Williamson fell backward in a split, grabbing his right knee. He walked off the court, and did not return. Duke Coach Mike Krzyzewski said afterward that Williamson had sustained a knee injury, but that the joint was “stable.” Pending further testing, the general sense is that Williamson — and Duke, and Nike, which made the shoe — had avoided the worst. Williamson, widely considered the nation’s best college player, is expected to be available to Duke in time for its conference tournament or the N.C.A.A. tournament, which begins in a month. That is, should Williamson elect to return. Huma cited the example of a top football player who found himself with a more serious injury a few years ago; that player elected to end his college career prematurely, to limit the risk to his professional payday. “To continue to risk his future in an unjust system that doesn’t allow him to be compensated just doesn’t make sense,” Huma said. The math behind the argument against Williamson’s returning is simple. Per N.C.A.A. rules, Duke is not compensating Williamson, an 18-year-old freshman, beyond a scholarship and the related costs of studying at, and playing for, the university. That is how the college sports economy works, even as Duke; its conference, the Atlantic Coast Conference; television networks; and, of course, Nike, the apparel company that sponsors Duke and made the shoe that so spectacularly ripped apart, reap billions of dollars from the efforts and talents of preprofessional athletes like Williamson.

Students, read the entire article, then tell us:

— Do you think college athletes should be paid? Or is a college scholarship and other non-monetary perks like the opportunity to play in front of cheering fans enough?

— Do you think college athletic programs, the N.C.A.A. and shoe companies like Nike are taking advantage of college athletes like Williamson? Why or why not?

— In a related Opinion piece, “ Paying Students to Play Would Ruin College Sports ,” Cody J. McDavis writes:

Paying student-athletes might sound like a fairer way to treat students who generate so much money and attention for their colleges (not to mention the television networks that broadcast their games). But paying athletes would distort the economics of college sports in a way that would hurt the broader community of student-athletes, universities, fans and alumni. A handful of big sports programs would pay top dollar for a select few athletes, while almost every other college would get caught up in a bidding war it couldn’t afford.

Do you find his argument persuasive? What possible difficulties or downsides might there be in providing monetary compensation to players?

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Paying College Athletes – Top 3 Pros and Cons

ARCHIVED WEBSITE

This topic was archived on Mar. 22, 2024, in light of recent developments. A reconsideration of the topic is possible in the future. 

The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) is a nonprofit organization formed in 1906 that regulates college athletics, including game rules, athlete eligibility, and college tournaments. [ 1 ] As of Mar. 2021, the NCAA was composed of “[n]early half a million college athletes [who] make up the 19,886 teams that send more than 57,661 participants to compete each year in the NCAA’s 90 championships in 24 sports across 3 divisions.” [ 1 ] [ 2 ]

The NCAA is seemingly the final authority to decide whether college athletes should be paid to play college sports. However, in 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the Fair Play Act that allows college athletes to hire agents, sign endorsement deals, and be paid for the use of their likeness. [ 3 ]

California was the first state to pass a NIL (name, image, and likeness) law, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2023. But California was quickly followed by more states. As of June 10, 2021, 18 states have passed NIL laws; five more states have passed bills that were awaiting the governor’s signature to become law; 14 states have introduced NIL bills; and one state has a bill passed by the Senate and awaiting a House vote, according to the Business of College Sports. [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 42 ]

The NCAA was scheduled to vote on new NIL rules in Jan. 2021, but it then postponed the vote, citing “external factors.” [ 10 ] Days before the scheduled vote Makan Delrahim, JD, Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice under the Trump administration, questioned the proposed rules’ compliance with antitrust laws. [ 11 ]

Additionally, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear a case (National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Shawne Alston, et al.) about whether the NCAA is violating antitrust laws by restricting college athletes’ compensation. [ 12 ] The Supreme Court heard arguments on Mar. 31, 2021 as the NCAA March Madness tournament heads into Final Four games just days later on Apr. 3. Respondents were split 50/50 in a June 1, 2021 New York Times survey about whether the NCAA strictly limiting paid compensation is constitutional. [ 13 ] [ 14 ] [ 41 ]

Gabe Feldman, JD, Professor of Sports Law, Director of the Sports Law Program and Associate Provost for NCAA compliance at Tulane University, noted that the last time the NCAA was at the Supreme Court was in 1984 (NCAA vs. the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma). The ruling changed the broadcast regulations for college football. Feldman explained, “That was a shape-shifting decision that in many ways fundamentally changed economics of college football and college football television. And ever since that 1984 decision, courts have been relying on that language to try to interpret antitrust law applies to all NCAA restrictions, including player compensation.” [ 15 ]

On June 21, 2021, the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the NCAA cannot ban certain payments to student athletes under the premise of maintaining amateurism. Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, stated, “traditions alone cannot justify the NCAA’s decision to build a massive money-raising enterprise on the backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated. Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law.” [ 43 ] [ 44 ]

On June 28, 2021, the NCAA Division I Council recommended to the NCAA Division I Board of Directors that student athletes be allowed to profit from their name, image, and likeness. Schools would not be allowed to pay students and no one could offer compensation for students to attend a particular school. If adopted, the rule would only apply to Division I schools and would be temporary until the NCAA or Congress acts. [ 45 ]

On June 30, 2021, fewer than 12 hours before some states’ NIL laws went into effect, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors issued an interim ruling stating that Bylaw 12 (the rules that say athletes cannot receive payment) will not be enforced. Divisions II and III of the NCAA followed suit and the changes went into effect for all three divisions on July 1, 2021. [ 46 ]

The University of North Carolina became the first school to organize group licensing deals for student athletes in July 2021. UNC athletes will be able to earn money for NIL marketing including UNC trademarks and logos in groups of three or more athletes. For example, a student athlete will be compensated for the sale of a jersey featuring their name, or for a sponsorship deal in which they appear wearing a UNC jersey. Group licensing deals in theory can allow lesser-known players to reap the benefits of appearing alongside a well-known player. [ 47 ]

By Jan. 2022, without a clear NIL structure from the NCAA, some schools were questioning how to navigate deals for players or whole teams without violating NCAA policy. [ 48 ]

NCAA president Charlie Baker sent a letter on Dec. 5, 2023, to the 362 Division I member schools calling for reformations including creating a separate division for the top-earning schools that would mimic professional sports and updating NIL regulations so female athletes could better benefit. The rule changes will have to be considered by the NCAA governing boards, a process which could take up to a year. [ 50 ]

A 2019 Seton Hall Sports Poll found that 60% of those surveyed agreed that college athletes should be allowed compensation for their name, image, and/or likeness, while 32% disagreed, and 8% were unsure. This was quite a change from polling conducted in 2017, when 60% believed college scholarships were enough compensation for college athletes. [ 16 ]

Should Colleges and Universities Pay College Athletes?

Pro 1 The NCAA, colleges, and universities profit unfairly from the work and likenesses of college athletes. The NCAA reported over $1.06 billion in revenue in 2017 (the most recent available numbers). In 2018, NCAA president Mark Emmert was paid more than $2.7 million. Nine other NCAA executives were paid more than $500,000 in 2018, with one paid more than $1.3 million. [ 18 ] [ 19 ] Michael Sokolove, author of The Last Temptation of Rick Pitino (2018), explained, “If you look at a program like [University of] Louisville, …they generate about $45 million a year in revenue. They give out 13 scholarships. That adds up to about $400,000 a year. The rest of it gets spread out to the coach, who makes $8 million a year, to the assistant coaches, who make as much as a half-million dollars a year. All throughout the athletic department, people are making six-figure salaries. It does not go to the players, what I call the unpaid workforce.” [ 3 ] As of Nov. 17, 2020, the University of Alabama head football coach Nick Saban was the highest paid NCAA college football coach, making $9.3 million per year. 81 other head football coaches made more than $1 million annually and another 29 more than $500,000. [ 20 ] The highest paid men’s basketball coach was the University of Kentucky head coach, John Calipari, who was paid $8.2 million per year. 69 other head men’s basketball coaches were paid more than $1 million annually, and another three more than $500,000. [ 20 ] Michigan coach Jim Harbaugh, who was forecast to earn about $11 million in 2023, says, “I would take less money for the players to have a share. I hope other coaches would use their voice to express the same thing.” [ 50 ] College athletes, arguably the stars of the show who earn millions year after year for the well-paid NCAA executives, coaches, and staff, were forbidden by the NCAA from not only being paid for their work-, but from seeking other related compensation such as endorsement deals. And, as John I. Jenkins and Jack Swarbrick, President and Athletics Director of Notre Dame University argue, “We have been vocal in our conviction that student-athletes should be allowed to… profit from their celebrity — for one simple reason: Other students are allowed to. If a college student is a talented artist or musician no one begrudges him the chance to make money from his skills. And athletes should as far as possible have the opportunities other students enjoy.” [ 49 ] Read More

Pro 2 College athletes are risking their bodies as well as their future careers and earning potential to play for colleges and universities while often receiving a sub-par education. Governor of California Gavin Newsom, stated, “Collegiate student athletes put everything on the line — their physical health, future career prospects and years of their lives to compete. Colleges reap billions from these student athletes’ sacrifices and success but, in the same breath, block them from earning a single dollar. That’s a bankrupt model.” [ 3 ] Zachary Kerr, PhD, Researcher at the University of North Carolina’s Center for the Study of Retired Athletes, stated, “I definitely think research indicates strong evidence that injuries during one’s sports career can potentially be associated with adverse health outcomes later in life.” [ 21 ] In 2017, 67% of former Division I athletes had sustained a major injury and 50% had chronic injuries, 2.5% higher than non-athletes. [ 21 ] Azmatullah Hussaini, MD, President of the New York/New Jersey chapter of the American Muslim Health Professionals, and Jules Lipoff, MD, Assistant Professor of Dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, offered additional context: especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, “[g]iven that athletes are disproportionately Black in the biggest revenue-generating sports — football and basketball — this dynamic also evokes America’s horrific history of unpaid slave labor. It’s hard to ignore the racist undertones when the financial benefit to these institutions is based on the unpaid work of young Black men.” [ 22 ] The NCAA requires players to have health insurance but does not pay for that insurance and can refuse to pay medical expenses for sports injuries, some of which can have life-long consequences for the players’ bodies and career opportunities. The NCAA also does not prohibit schools from canceling injured athletes’ scholarships, leaving athletes without a sport or education. [ 23 ] Adding insult to sometimes literal injury, college athletes are also frequently denied the NCAA’s other form of “compensation”: a quality education. As Jon Solomon, Editorial Director for the Sports and Society Program at the Aspen Institute explained, “The most glaring example occurred when the University of North Carolina was found by outside parties to have organized fake classes that enabled dozens of athletes to gain and maintain their eligibility… of the 3,100 students who took the fake classes over 18 years, 47.4 percent were athletes… North Carolina avoided NCAA penalties by essentially arguing that the NCAA should stay out of irregularities in college courses.” [ 24 ] The NCAA polices athletes’ finances but does not ensure a quality education. Read More

Pro 3 College athletes are often valued at more than $1 million, but they (and their families) frequently live below the poverty line. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the top two college football positions–the quarterback and wide receiver–were worth $2.4 million and $1.3 million per year respectively, while starting men’s basketball players in the Power Five schools were worth between $800,000 and $1.2 million per year. [ 25 ] [ 26 ] If college players earned about 50% of their teams’ revenues like the NFL and NBA players do, the average football player’s yearly salary would be $360,000 and the average basketball player’s yearly salary would be $500,000. [ 25 ] [ 26 ] The study found that “[t]he player-level analysis reveals that the existing limits on player compensation effectively transfers resources away from students who are more likely to be black and more likely to come from poor neighborhoods towards students who are more likely to be white and come from higher-income neighborhoods.” [ 25 ] College athletes are required to make up the difference between NCAA scholarships and the actual cost of living. Tuition shortfalls amount to thousands of dollars per year and leave about 85% of players to live below the poverty line. For example, fair market value for a University of Texas football player was $513,922. However, players lived $778 below the federal poverty line and owed $3,624 in tuition. [ 27 ] About 25% of Division I athletes reported food poverty in the past year and almost 14% reported being homeless in the past year. Erin McGeoy, a former water polo athlete at George Washington University, explained, “a common occurrence was that we would run out of meal money halfway through the semester and that’s when I started to run into troubles of food insecurity.” She turned to boarding dogs in her no-dogs-allowed apartment in order to pay rent because housing costs increased each year but her housing allowance remained static. [ 28 ] The NCAA keeps players in poverty and denied them ways to earn money, while making millions on their performance. Read More

Con 1 Scholarships are fair financial compensation for college athletes, especially considering the precarious finances of athletic departments. According to the NCAA, the organization provides “more than $3.6 billion in athletic scholarships annually to more than 180,000 student-athletes.” Divided equitably, each student would receive about $20,000 per year. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the average total cost of public college (tuition, fees, room, and board) for the 2017–18 academic year was $17,797. Considering other scholarships and aid are widely available and not all college athletes require financial aid, the NCAA scholarships are generous. [ 29 ] [ 30 ] Further, most college programs do not generate the income needed to run their athletic programs, much less pay athletes. In fiscal year 2019, the collective expenses of the 65 Power Five schools–the largest and richest Division I schools in the NCAA–exceeded revenue by $7 million. Other Division I schools had an almost $23 million collective difference between revenue and expenses. No Division II or III schools’ revenue exceeded expenses. [ 31 ] If students were paid, the NCAA argues, many colleges and universities would have to offer fewer scholarships and the remaining scholarships would be distributed unfairly to top football and men’s basketball players because those two sports bring in the most revenue. Schools would also have to cut unprofitable sports including gymnastics, swimming and diving, tennis, track and field, volleyball, and wrestling. [ 32 ] Discrepancies between men’s and women’s sports such as the weight room during the 2021 NCAA basketball tournament would only worsen. [ 40 ] Paying players would also limit the literal and figurative playing fields to elite universities with large budgets. As John Thelin, PhD, Research Professor of History of Higher Education & Public Policy at the University of Kentucky, explained, “paying salaries to players will increase [athletic] program expenditures without necessarily increasing revenues… [and] a handful of powerful programs will stand to gain in competition for athletic talent simply because they can afford to pay salaries. Others will mimic as they try to keep up but eventually will fall short in trying to outbid Auburn University, Florida State, the University of Southern California or the University of Texas in the college player arms race.” [ 33 ] Read More

Con 2 Very few college athletes will go pro, so athletes should take advantage of the education being offered in exchange for playing a college sport. The reality is that the vast majority of college athletes will never play professionally. Of the 36,011 college baseball players, only 8,002 are eligible to play professionally each year. 1,217 will be draft picks, but only 791 will be drafted yearly, meaning about 9.9% of college baseball players will go pro, which is the largest likelihood in NCAA sports. [ 34 ] The major money-makers, football and men’s basketball, have very low odds. Of the 73,712 NCAA football players, about 16,380 are draft-eligible and 254 will be drafted, meaning about 1.2% of college football players will go pro. Of the 18,816 male basketball players, 4,181 are draft-eligible and 60 will be drafted, but only 52 will go pro, or a 1.2% chance a college basketball player will play professionally. The odds are even lower for women’s basketball at 0.6%. [ 34 ] The NCAA noted, “[p]rofessional opportunities are extremely limited and the likelihood of a high school or even college athlete becoming a professional athlete is very low. In contrast, the likelihood of an NCAA athlete earning a college degree is significantly greater; graduation success rates are 86% in Division I, 71% in Division II and 87% in Division III.” [ 34 ] In other words, it would be more prudent and more profitable for college athletes to focus on education as their compensation. Data analyzed from the Department of Labor showed nine out of 10 new jobs were going to employees with college degrees in June 2018. [ 35 ] Further, a Gallup poll of “74,385 U.S. adults with a bachelor’s degree, finds that college graduates who participated in NCAA athletics experience a host of positive long-term life outcomes at greater rates than non-athletes.” [ 36 ] Those positive outcomes include: 70% of NCAA athletes graduated in four years or fewer, 50% agree that college was worth the cost, 39% earned an advanced degree, 33% have “good” jobs after graduation, and 24% “are thriving at the highest levels,” all higher percentages than their non-athlete peers. [ 36 ] Amy Perko, CEO of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, said of the Gallup findings, “It’s a positive report for the educational benefits for college sports, and it reinforces the point that we’ve tried to make over the years. There’s an important role for college sports in higher education, and that role needs to be placed in the proper perspective as part of the educational mission, not apart from it.” [ 37 ] Read More

Con 3 Paying college athletes would not solve the real problem: the American amateur sports system is broken. Football and basketball players cannot play professionally immediately after high school. The NBA requires players to be at least 19 and a year out of high school, while the NFL requires players to be three years out of high school. [ 38 ] These rules can effectively limit players’ options to playing in college or choosing another profession altogether. Most players have no real “amateur” sport option and those who would rather not go to college have no other established feeder system to make it to a professional team. Further confusing the issue, the NCAA does not have a consistent or fair definition of “amateurism” and allows some significant forms of financial compensation. College athletes are allowed to compete in the Olympic Games and be financially compensated, such as Joseph Schooling, a University of Texas swimmer, who earned a $740,000 bonus for winning Singapore’s first gold medal ever at the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Summer Games for the 100m butterfly. College athletes may also play a second sport professionally and be compensated, such as Clemson quarterback Kyle Parker who earned a $1.4 million baseball signing bonus from the Colorado Rockies in 2010 while still playing football for the Tigers. Tennis players may earn up to $10,000 in prize money yearly while playing college tennis and college football players may earn up to $550 in bowl gifts. [ 24 ] B. David Ridpath, EdD, Associate Professor of Sports Administration at Ohio University, noted, “The only amateur quality about college athletics is that colleges refuse to pay their players.” Ridpath explained, “The United States is the only country in the world that has a significant portion of elite athletic development and commercialized sport embedded within its education systems. Consider that ten of the biggest outdoor sports stadiums in the world (excluding auto racing venues) are American college football stadiums. None of the largest ones are NFL stadiums.” [ 39 ] To fix the problem, and separate athletes who are getting an education just because they want to play a sport from those who actually want to go to college, the United States needs a true amateur or minor league that feeds into professional sports. Read More

Discussion Questions

1. Should college athletes be paid? Why or why not?

2. Should the college athletics system be revised in another way to compensate amateur athletes? Explain your answer.

3. How should the NCAA (or another governing body) balance college athletes’ sport, educational, and financial interests? Explain your answer(s).

4. Do you think well-established minor-league systems would be attractive to high-school graduates and college athletes less interested in (or ill-prepared for) higher education? Explain your answer(s).

Take Action

1. Consider the pro position of the National College Players Association that paying college athletes is a civil rights issue.

2. Explore the NCAA site and think critically about the organization as the governing body of college athletics.

3. Analyze the argument that paying athletes would “ruin college sports” from Cody J. McDavis , former college basketball player.

4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the “other side of the issue” now helps you better argue your position.

5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives .

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

Cite This Page

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

Are you seeking one-on-one college counseling and/or essay support? Limited spots are now available. Click here to learn more.

Should College Athletes be Paid?

March 31, 2024

Okay, I won’t hide the ball: my answer to the question, “Should college athletes be paid?” is a resounding, “Yes.” But before I go through the reasons why (and some countervailing streams of thought as well), I think it’s important to place the question in the larger context of money in college sports. Why? Because there just so happens to be a ton of money in college sports. On Saturdays during football season, hundreds of thousands of fans across the nation flock to iconic stadiums —the Big House, Death Valley, the Swamp—and pay premium ticket prices to watch their favorite teams go at it.

Millions more tune in to the games from home, and the NCAA conferences take advantage of the sport’s popularity to the tune of billions of dollars. In 2022, the Big Ten, for example, inked a seven-year media rights agreement with Fox, CBS, and NBC worth upwards of $7 billion.

The coaches are very much in on the action, too. College football coaches, especially those who strategize from the sidelines of premiere football schools, boast yearly salaries that are truly jaw-dropping. In the last year before his retirement, Alabama’s Nick Saban made $11.41 million. The same year, Clemson’s Dabo Swinney pocketed $10.88 million, and Georgia’s Kirby Smart took home $10.71 million. Sure, those are some of the best football programs in the country. But still: more than a hundred Division I coaches earn over $1 million. The top 25 college football coaches earn an average of $5.2 million per year. The top 25 college basketba l l coaches earn an average of $3.2 million per year.

Should College Athletes be Paid (Continued)

Every year, the NCAA rakes in about a billion dollars from March Madness alone. In 2019, Connecticut senator Chris Murphy released a report titled “Madness, Inc.”, which took aim at what the report termed the “college sports industrial complex.” The report cites Department of Education data which showed that college sports programs brought in a whopping $14 billion in revenue in 2018 alone. In terms of revenue, college sports beat out every professional sports league in the world, except the NFL.

And here’s the kicker: college athletes—the product that millions of Americans pay to watch compete—aren’t compensated for their on-the-field performance. That’s because the NCAA’s long-enshrined policy of amateurism states that student-athletes are students first—thus “amateurs”—and are therefore not eligible for compensation. The good news? In 2021, the NCAA implemented an interim policy. This allows student-athletes to make money from their name, image, and likeness. The so-called NIL rule permits students to engage in money-making “NIL activities,” like selling autographs and memorabilia, making paid appearances, and going into business with brands. The new NIL policy is a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t address the root of the problem. In 2022, only 17% of student-athletes at Division I schools participated in NIL activities. The median compensation (note: not the average, which can be distorted by particularly high-earners) was $65 per NIL activity.

America seems to have come to a consensus on the question of should college athletes be paid. According to a recent poll , 67% of Americans believe that college athletes should be compensated for their performance. Not just for their name, image, and likeness.

Should college athletes be paid?

  Now let’s confront the question head on: should college athletes be paid? I’ve already gone on record with an unequivocal, “yes.” But to preserve a sense of fairness, I’ll go through some of the arguments on the opposite side of the issue, and in so doing hopefully provide a sound justification for my answer.

Should college athletes be paid? No, they’re already paid in the form of scholarships

Should college athletes be paid? No, some say, because college athletes already receive full scholarships, which is tantamount to payment. Unfortunately, this argument doesn’t pass the sniff test. Every year, Division I and II colleges dole out about $2.9 billion in scholarships to some 150,000 student-athletes. That sounds great until you realize that the average yearly scholarship is just about $18,000; that’s far from sufficient to cover tuition at most private schools or out-of-state tuition at state schools. Overall, only 1% of student-athletes receive a “full ride” scholarship. Under a little scrutiny, then, the argument that college athletes receive compensation in the form of scholarships falls apart.

So college athletes aren’t paid via scholarships. Sure, that’s a fact, but not an argument as to why college athletes should be paid. Well, here’s the argument: given the money and exposure that athletes generate for their schools, any just system would require they be compensated for the value they add. A phenomenon known as the Flutie Effect describes how a college football team’s success leads to an increase in applications. When college football teams go from “mediocre to great,” applications increase by as much as 18%. And better performance on the gridiron results in more donations to the school. Donations go up significantly when football squads post better records.

To put it concisely: athletes bring significant value to their schools in the form of exposure and monetary donations, and scholarships do not amount to an adequate form of compensation. Therefore, college athletes deserve to be paid.

But it would be too complicated to figure out salaries!

The “it’s just too difficult!” argument is a common retort to the question of should college athletes be paid. It’s also a fixture in American political discourse. Should the U.S., say, move towards single-payer healthcare? Of course not—it’d be too difficult to implement!

Here, the “it’s-too-difficult” argument suggests that determining which college athletes would get compensated, and how much they’d get compensated, would be a complicated and messy undertaking. Therefore, it’d be better simply not to pay college athletes.

But appealing to the apparent intractability of a problem is no reason not to address it. The fact that it might be difficult to correct an iniquity is no justification for not trying to correct it at all.

Professional sports leagues are far from shining models of equity and fairness. UFC fighters—who aren’t unionized, by the way— are only paid about 20% of overall revenue , whereas unionized leagues like the NBA, MLB, and NFL share roughly 50% of their revenue with players. There are issues of gender equity across leagues, too. The average WNBA base salary is $120,600 ; the average NBA base salary is $5.4 million. However, there are plenty of professional sports leagues that have managed to figure out how to fairly compensate their athletes, from superstars to bench players. When one considers this fact, the “it’s too complicated” argument falls apart, too.

Where would the money come from?

Another oft-heard argument that answers, “no,” to the question of should college athletes be paid goes like this: because so few college athletics programs are cash-flow positive, schools would have to make cuts to minor sports programs to come up with the money to pay athletes who compete in premiere sports, like football and basketball. This line of reasoning assumes that paying marquee college athletes would preclude the possibility of paying athletes who compete in more minor or niche sports. But that assumption is not warranted.

As I noted previously, professional sports leagues—from the NFL to independent league baseball to professional jai alai —have figured out how to compensate players with different levels of skill and star power. There’s no reason to think the NCAA couldn’t do it as well.

The way resources are allocated reflects an institution’s values. At least one highly-paid college football coach has gone on record as saying he’d happily take less money if it meant his players would be paid .

Paying athletes would take away from the love of the game

In doing research for this article, I confronted this argument or one of its variations quite a lot. It goes like this: college athletics should compete not for financial gain but for a nebulous “love of the game.” Paying college athletes would tarnish the otherwise pure and idealistic realm of college sports.

But we’ve already established that college sports are a big business. The NCAA, conferences, schools, and coaches all benefit from that business. Why should the athletes be the only ones who have to work with no pay, just to fulfill some romanticized and unrealistic idea of college sports?

Plus, participating in college sports amounts to a full-time job. Although NCAA policy states that athletes may only dedicate 20 hours per week to sports-related activity, studies have shown that Division I athletes spend an average of 35 hours per week on sports activities. A lawsuit filed by two UNC football players alleged that the NCAA skirted around its own policies and deprived players of a meaningful education.

Those who answer “no” to the question of should college athletes be paid are therefore confronted with a dilemma. If student-athletes should only be competing for the “love of the game,” why does their participation in college sports look a lot like a full-time job? And if their participation in college sports looks like a full-time job, why are they not compensated accordingly?

Should college athletes be paid? – a few more thoughts

Participation in college sports takes up a large chunk of a student-athlete’s time, study time included. Right now, student-athletes are getting the worst of both worlds. They’re not compensated for their positions as athletes (nor are the vast majority of them getting those coveted “free ride” educations), and their participation in sports precludes them from fully dedicating themselves to their studies. Student-athletes make a major sacrifice to participate in sports. Further, this sacrifice that brings immense value to their schools and the NCAA. Student athletes ought to be compensated for that sacrifice.

Speaking of sacrifices, college athletes are at constant risk of injury. A serious on-the-field injury could result in an athlete losing his or her scholarship and the opportunity to play professionally. But let’s put aside the potential financial ramifications of an injury. A 2017 study examined the deceased bodies of former American football players. The findings were shocking: 91% of college football players had the degenerative brain disease CTE. If schools want their athletes to risk their mental and physical well-being, they should pay them according to that risk.

Let’s end with some straight up common sense—athletes need money just like everyone else. Participating in a college sport and keeping up with academic demands makes it virtually impossible for a student-athlete to earn extra money working a part-time job. Paying student-athletes would act as a corrective to this untenable situation.

Should College Athletes be Paid – Additional Resources 

We hope you have found our article on whether college athletes should be paid to be insightful. We also want to recommend checking out the following resources:

• D1 vs. D2 vs D3 College Athletics – What is the Difference?
• Best and Loudest College Football Stadiums
• Who Has the Most College Football Championships
• All-Time Women’s College Basketball Scoring
• D1 Colleges in Texas

Dane Gebauer

Dane Gebauer is a writer and teacher living in Miami, FL. He received his MFA in fiction from Columbia University, and his writing has appeared in Complex Magazine and Sinking City Review .

• 2-Year Colleges
• ADHD/LD/Autism/Executive Functioning
• Application Strategies
• Best Colleges by Major
• Best Colleges by State
• Big Picture
• Career & Personality Assessment
• College Essay
• College Search/Knowledge
• College Success
• Costs & Financial Aid
• Data Visualizations
• Dental School Admissions
• Extracurricular Activities
• Graduate School Admissions
• High School Success
• High Schools
• Homeschool Resources
• Law School Admissions
• Medical School Admissions
• Navigating the Admissions Process
• Online Learning
• Outdoor Adventure
• Private High School Spotlight
• Research Programs
• Summer Program Spotlight
• Summer Programs
• Teacher Tools
• Test Prep Provider Spotlight

“Innovative and invaluable…use this book as your college lifeline.”

— Lynn O'Shaughnessy

Nationally Recognized College Expert

College Planning in Your Inbox

Join our information-packed monthly newsletter.

Exploring the Debate on Paying College Athletes

• Communications

Why Should College Athletes Be Paid, Essay Sample

One of the most pressing issues in college sports is the debate over whether or not college athletes should be paid. This topic has gained significant attention in recent years, with many arguing that it is only fair for college athletes to receive compensation for their hard work, dedication, and revenue-generating contributions. This free essay sample from Edusson will explore the various reasons why college athletes should be paid and will provide a comprehensive analysis of the issue.

Time Commitment and Workload

College athletes put in a tremendous amount of time and effort into their sport, often at the expense of their studies and personal life. As a student-athlete, I know firsthand the dedication it takes to balance academics and sports. We have rigorous practice schedules, intense training sessions, and games that require travel, leaving little time for anything else. Many athletes have to miss classes or sacrifice study time to attend competitions or travel with their teams. The workload of a college athlete can be overwhelming and can negatively impact their academic performance and mental health. Some may argue that athletes receive scholarships and other benefits, but these do not fully compensate for the amount of time and effort they put into their sport. Paying college athletes would help to alleviate some of the financial burden that many student-athletes face, while also compensating them for their time and workload.

Financial Struggles

As a student, I believe that college athletes should be paid for their hard work and dedication to their sports. One of the main reasons for this is the financial struggles that many college athletes face. These athletes come from low-income families and often struggle to make ends meet while attending college. They are unable to work part-time jobs to earn extra income due to the rigorous demands of their sport. This creates a challenging situation where they are unable to support themselves or their families financially. Paying college athletes would provide much-needed financial support and alleviate some of their financial struggles. This would allow them to focus on their studies and athletics without the added stress of financial instability. It would also give them the opportunity to contribute financially to their families, which many of them are unable to do currently. In short, paying college athletes would help alleviate the financial burdens they face and provide a fair compensation for their hard work and dedication to their sport.

Health and Safety Risks

As college athletes compete at a high level, they put their bodies on the line and are exposed to various health and safety risks. These athletes often play through injuries, which can exacerbate the severity of the injury, resulting in long-term physical damage. Therefore, it’s essential to consider the health and safety risks associated with college sports. Paying college athletes would acknowledge the risks that they take and provide a safety net if they get hurt. Furthermore, college athletes who are injured may not have access to the same level of healthcare as professional athletes. Paying them would help ensure they have the proper medical care and resources to recover from injuries. Moreover, paying college athletes could also incentivize schools to prioritize athlete safety and ensure that their health is a top priority. Overall, providing financial compensation to college athletes for the risks they take and the injuries they sustain is not only fair but also necessary for their wellbeing.

Revenue Generation

One of the main arguments in favor of paying college athletes is that they deserve to be compensated for their role in generating revenue for their universities and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). When fans attend a college sports event or purchase team merchandise, they are supporting the team and the entire athletic program. The athletes who are responsible for the success of these programs, however, do not receive any monetary compensation for their efforts. It is unfair that the NCAA and universities benefit from the work of college athletes without providing them with fair compensation. It is also worth noting that college sports have become a commercial enterprise, with the NCAA and universities treating them as such. Many top college sports programs generate millions of dollars in revenue every year, and the athletes who contribute to this success are essential to the financial health of their respective programs. However, athletes often struggle to make ends meet due to the demands of their sport, and they don’t have the time or resources to work part-time jobs to earn extra income.

Fairness and Equity

As college athletes put in countless hours of hard work and dedication to their respective sports, it’s only fair to compensate them for their efforts. However, one aspect that often goes unnoticed is the lack of rights and privileges that college athletes are subjected to, especially when it comes to earning money from their name, image, and likeness.

It is unfortunate that college athletes are the only ones on campus who are not allowed to monetize their skills and talents. This is in stark contrast to everyone else on campus, including musicians, artists, and actors, who can earn money from their talents while attending college. This discrepancy can cause a sense of injustice among college athletes who are forced to watch others monetize their talents while they are restricted from doing so.

In recent years, the issue of fairness and equity has gained considerable attention, and rightfully so. Paying college athletes would go a long way in promoting fairness and equity among all students. It would ensure that athletes have the same rights and opportunities as other students, allowing them to monetize their skills and talents just like everyone else. Additionally, paying college athletes would help eliminate the economic disparities that exist on campuses, especially among low-income athletes who may not have the financial support they need to sustain themselves.

Furthermore, paying college athletes would promote gender equality. Female athletes have historically been paid less than male athletes, even at the professional level. This inequality also extends to college sports, where female athletes often receive less funding and attention than their male counterparts. By paying college athletes, regardless of gender, colleges and universities would help bridge this gap and promote equality among all athletes.

In this table, we will outline some of the main reasons why college athletes should be paid.

Related posts:

• College Research Paper Example
• Freedom of Speech Argumentative Essay
• Exploring My Motivations for Pursuing a Supervisory Role
• The Importance of Women’s Choice: Exploring the Reasons Why Abortion Should Be Legal Essay

Improve your writing with our guides

Youth Culture Essay Prompt and Discussion

Reasons Why Minimum Wage Should Be Raised Essay: Benefits for Workers, Society, and The Economy

Why Marijuana Should Not Be Legal: Potential Risks and Drawbacks

Get 15% off your first order with edusson.

Connect with a professional writer within minutes by placing your first order. No matter the subject, difficulty, academic level or document type, our writers have the skills to complete it.

100% privacy. No spam ever.

• Sign in to save searches and organize your favorite content.
• Not registered? Sign up

Recently viewed (0)

• Save Search
• Previous Article
• Next Article

Should College Athletes Be Allowed to Be Paid? A Public Opinion Analysis

Click name to view affiliation

• Get Citation Alerts
• Download PDF

Traditionally, public opinions have largely opposed further compensation for U.S. college athletes, beyond the costs of going to school. This study uses new data from the National Sports and Society Survey ( N  = 3,993) to assess recent public opinions about allowing college athletes to be paid more than it costs them to go to school. The authors found that a majority of U.S. adults now support, rather than oppose, allowing college athletes to be paid. Also, the authors found that White adults are especially unlikely, and Black adults are especially likely, to support allowing payment. Furthermore, recognition of racial/ethnic discrimination is positively, and indicators of traditionalism are negatively, associated with support for allowing college athletes to be paid.

The compensation of U.S. college athletes, beyond educationally tethered compensation such as scholarships, has been the subject of significant concern and empirical inquiry for decades ( Nocera & Strauss, 2016 ; Mondello et al., 2013 ; Sack & Staurowsky, 1998 ). Many college sports programs generate massive amounts of revenue, specifically in the highest competitive division (i.e., Division I) of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The sports of football and men’s basketball hold special distinction and generate billions of dollars of annual revenue—much more than other college sports combined ( Branch, 2011 ; Nocera & Strauss, 2016 ; Sanderson & Siegfried, 2015 ).

Notably, these two sports are disproportionately played by Black males. Although Black males make up <5% of the undergraduate population in U.S. colleges and universities, they comprise 56% of the participants in NCAA Division I men’s basketball and 55% of the participants in football. Conversely, athletic administrators and coaches are overwhelmingly White ( Harper & Simmons, 2019 ; Lapchick, 2019 ). For example, 80% of men’s basketball coaches and 86% of head football coaches are White, very much out of proportion to the percentage of racial/ethnic minority athletes that they coach. Furthermore, White males are disproportionately NCAA administrators, and over 90% of conference commissioners are White ( Gore-Mann & Grace, 2020 ; Lapchick, 2019 ). Consequently, the leadership and policymakers in charge of college sports are overwhelmingly White, while the athletic revenue generators are disproportionately Black.

Also, the commercially popular college sport industry is replete with highly paid coaches, well-compensated administrators, multimillion-dollar facilities, and significant perquisites for college athletes beyond academic scholarships—but no payment in excess of the full cost of attendance has been allowed for the athletes ( Nocera & Strauss, 2016 ; Ridpath, Rudd & Stokowski, 2019 ). Still, revenues in intercollegiate athletics have dramatically increased in the past 20 years. There is now a 14-year $10.8 billion television contract with Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) and Turner Sports for the rights to televise the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. Also, a $7.3 billion television contract exists for the College Football Playoff and six associated football Bowl games ( Berkowitz, Upton & Brady, 2013 ; Gore-Mann & Grace, 2020 ). Nevertheless, revenue increases have not resulted in much of an increase in compensation to the group that generates the money, the players ( Nocera & Strauss, 2016 ; Sanderson & Siegfried, 2015 ).

Even with increased revenue streams and the ability to provide more compensation to athletes, the long-held concept of amateurism and the new public-relations-driven moniker of the “collegiate model” are presented by defenders as nondebatable ideals for the industry of intercollegiate athletics. It is argued that college athletes should not be paid a salary or direct remuneration for performance; otherwise, the popularity of the industry will suffer economic damage ( Nocera & Strauss, 2016 ; Tatos, 2017 ). Consequently, college athletes are denied access to billions of the dollars that they generate, and adults in leadership positions defend the status quo, while disproportionately claiming the rewards. Yet, resistance to this arrangement has been clearly building ( Branch, 2011 ; Hruby, 2016 ; Huma & Staurowsky, 2011 ; Seton Hall Sports Poll, 2019 ).

The purpose of this study is to analyze public opinions about college athletes being allowed to be paid, as athletes, more than it costs them to go to school. Information from public opinion research is commonly used to help inform interested parties about the public’s concern over key issues that can directly or indirectly affect them. It can also provide insight into the factors that predict public opinions, if variance in public opinion is analyzed comprehensively with appropriate theory and research methods ( Price & Neijens, 1997 ; Winter, 2008 ). Specifically, we used information from a large, new, national sample of U.S. adults ( N  = 3,993) to gauge public opinion support for allowing college athletes to be paid. Then, using regression analyses, we tested hypotheses about the significance of race/ethnicity, sports involvement, and traditionalism in shaping public opinions about allowing college athletes to be paid. We built upon and extended previous research by (a) analyzing new public opinions about college athletes’ basic economic rights; (b) contextualizing our research more fully within understandings of power, control, and exploitation processes—especially as informed by critical race theory (CRT); and (c) leveraging these unique data to more comprehensively analyze predictors of public opinion attitudes about compensation. Our main predictors include measures of sports fandom, racial/ethnic identities, recognition of racial/ethnic discrimination, conservatism, and two sets of demographic characteristics associated with race/ethnicity and traditionalism: age and urbanicity. Previous work on public opinions about college athlete compensation has focused on descriptive reports of opinions about paying college athletes, the implications of different anti-Black framings of the issue, and Black–White differences in public opinions about paying college athletes ( Druckman, Howat, & Rodheim, 2016 ; Mondello et al., 2013 ; Seton Hall Sports Poll, 2019 ; Wallsten, Nteta, McCarthy, & Tarsi, 2017 ).

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for this study draws upon CRT to help situate the history of amateurism in college sports, the increased commercialization of it, and an apparently emerging willingness to approve of higher levels of compensation for athletes to anticipate public opinion support for allowing college athletes to be paid. Critical analyses of race in society are central to the advent of sociology (e.g., W. E. B. Du Bois) and the sociology of sport (e.g., Harry Edwards), but the emergence of CRT in the 1970s from the work of legal scholars such as Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, and Alan Freeman has become particularly influential in not only attempting to address racial/ethnic inequalities through the judicial system, but also in helping to better understand, and theorize about, race in society. Now integrated within the theory and practice of many different academic disciplines and applied to the study of countless fields of inquiry, CRT has become a prominent and instructive approach to understanding the history and the continuity of embedded racial/ethnic prejudice and discrimination—including within sports, education, and other parts of society ( Cooper, 2012; 2019 ; Delgado & Stafancic, 2001 ; Solorzano & Yosso, 2001 ). Central to CRT is its recognition of the origin and maintenance of White property rights, control, and hegemony in society; these conditions are evident in the history and current application of amateurism in college sports as well ( Cooper, 2012; 2019 ; Comeaux, 2010 ; Rankin-Wright, Hylton, & Norman, 2016 ; Shaw, Moiseichik, Blunt-Vinti, & Stokowski, 2019 ). CRT encourages us to understand that the logics, structures, practices, and opinions of compensation for college athletes are eminently, and even originally, racialized and social justice issues ( Cooper, 2012, 2019 ; Hruby, 2016 ; Meyer & Zimbalist, 2020 ; Wallsten, et al., 2017 ).

Theorizing that has stemmed from CRT has included common principles that help to direct a rigorous awareness and redress of racial/ethnic inequalities; still, different authors and studies often adapt these principles in nuanced ways. Our study is informed by the following CRT tenets: (a) race is socially constructed ( Delgado & Stafancic, 2001 ; Shaw et al., 2019 ); (b) racial/ethnic prejudice and discrimination are endemic to society ( Bell, 1992 ; Shaw et al., 2019 ); (c) Whiteness as property norm ( Cooper, 2019 ; Harris, 1993 ); (d) counter narratives, counter storytelling, and experiential knowledge, especially from voices of color, are neglected ( Delgado & Stafancic, 2001 ; Solorzano & Yosso, 2001 ); (e) interest convergences enable changes in racial/ethnic inequalities ( Bell, 1980, 1992 ; Shaw et al., 2019 ); and (f) challenges to dominant ideologies are necessary for social justice ( Delgado Bernal, 2002 ; Solorzano & Yosso, 2001 ).

In turn, these tenets note that race has been socially constructed in ways that are connected to and based upon false premises of racial/ethnic inequalities, such that notions of White supremacy and justifications of racial/ethnic inequalities are perpetuated. Thus, corresponding racial/ethnic prejudices and discrimination are endemic to individuals’ thoughts and experiences, as well as societal structures, cultures, and policies ( Bell, 1992 ; Cooper, 2012, 2019 ; Comeaux, 2010 ). The Whiteness as property tenet recognizes that Whiteness carries with it identities, status, and a set of rights (e.g., rights of disposition, use and enjoyment, reputation and status, exclusion of others) that were originally connected to owning property, the ability of which has been facilitated by racially unjust means, but came to embody the characteristics of White privilege (i.e., Whiteness). Consequently, the statuses, privileges, and rights of Whiteness are normalized ( Cooper, 2012, 2019 ; Harris, 1993 ). The voices-of-color tenet references the neglect, discounting, and need of counter narratives and perspectives based on experiential knowledge from people of color; oftentimes, CRT methodologies utilize storytelling and narrative approaches—although we did not employ these in the present study ( Delgado Bernal, 2002 ; Solorzano & Yosso, 2001 ). The interest convergences tenet observes that there has been little motivation or action among White individuals to reduce racial/ethnic inequalities in society; gains that have occurred have largely been facilitated by a convergence of antiracist interests with the self-interests of Whites ( Bell, 1980, 1992 ; Solorzano & Yosso, 2001 ). Finally, CRT advocates for social justice outcomes, and this process is connected to the need to dismantle dominant ideologies that perpetuate racial/ethnic inequalities ( Delgado Bernal, 2002 ; Solorzano & Yosso, 2001 ).

In analyzing variance in public opinion support for allowing college athletes to be paid, besides being informed by these CRT tenets, we also recognize the usefulness of considering aracial (i.e., purported disregard of race/ethnicity) racism and an understanding of traditionalism as a propensity to be resistant to change ( Bonilla-Silva, 2003 ; Hochschild, 2016 ; Love & Hughey, 2015 ; Winter, 2008 ). Overall, due to racialized origins and practices of college sports that idealized amateurism but became particularly exploitative of commercialized college athletes, we expected that racial/ethnic identities and beliefs about racial/ethnic prejudices and discrimination were likely to shape public opinion support for allowing college athletes to be paid—despite the common understanding of one’s own opinions, particularly in sports, as being based on an aracial approach to thinking about lofty ideals that involve assumptions about morality, responsibility, hard work, and integrity ( Druckman et al., 2016 ; Mondello et al., 2013 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ). Furthermore, indicators of traditionalism—such as those that can be tapped by age, urbanicity, and self-identified conservatism—are likely to lead to greater levels of resistance to changing rules about compensation to college athletes ( Druckman et al., 2016 ; Seton Hall Sports Poll, 2019 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ).

• CRT, College Sports, and Amateurism

The application of CRT tenets to better understand the issue of college athlete compensation leads to a number of observations. First, the social construction and endemic nature of race tenets direct us to observe that the creation and implementation of U.S. college sports has been done in a country with a sordid history of socially constructing race to justify and reify racial/ethnic inequalities and perpetuating, as well as institutionalizing, racial/ethnic inequalities; college sports, and public opinions about it, have been similarly shaped and influenced by constructions of race and perpetual and corresponding racial/ethnic prejudice and discrimination processes within structures, cultures, and policies—anti-Black racial/ethnic prejudice and discrimination have been especially prominent ( Branch, 2011 ; Cooper, 2012, 2019 ; Krysan & Moberg, 2016 ). Second, it is instructive to recognize that college sports, and the ideals and priorities of amateurism, were originally created by White individuals for White participants. Non-White voices were not seriously considered, and non-White experiences were not a priority; this dynamic has largely continued such that voices of color are not well represented and valued ( Branch, 2011 ; Cooper, 2012, 2019 ; Hruby, 2016 ; Lapchick, 2019 ; Singer, 2019 ). Third, White control, and emerging profiteering, over college sports has ties to the origin of property rights, and Whiteness as property has been naturalized and viewed as normative. This is not unique to college sports ( Cooper, 2012, 2019 ; Krysan, 2000 ; Krysan & Moberg, 2016 ; Lapchick, 2019 ). Fourth, interest convergences have occasionally led to increased opportunities for non-Whites, and especially Blacks, in college sports. Interest convergences have also led to shifting and flexible definitions of amateurism in attempts to regulate and control college sports and pursue commercial interests ( Huma & Staurowsky, 2011 ; Meyer & Zimbalist, 2020 ; Southall & Staurowsky, 2013 ). These modifications in college sports appear to mostly follow American practices of White Racism Capitalism rather than exemplify magnanimity and concern for (non-White) athletes. That is, increased opportunities for non-Whites in college sports and adjustments in the definition and application of amateurism have amplified the exploitation of non-White, and primarily Black, labor in efforts to pursue commercial interests and profits—which have been largely maintained by Whites ( Branch, 2011 ; Cooper, 2019 ; Hruby, 2016 ; Krysan, 2000 ). Finally, challenges to the dominant ideologies and practices of college sports are necessary for social justice ( Cooper, 2019 ; Huma & Staurowsky, 2011 ; Southall, Eckard, Nagel, & Randall, 2015 ; Southall & Southall, 2018 ; Southall & Staurowsky, 2013 ). Below, we have integrated these observations into a brief history of amateurism in college sports before focusing on public opinions about compensation for college athletes.

American intercollegiate athletics are structured as an amateur sport enterprise. Amateurism was developed as part of a White, Eurocentric, middle/upper class vision of sport for developmental and enjoyment purposes—for White males. By strict definition, an amateur athlete should not receive any remuneration for athletic performance; thus, amateurism ideals have also functioned as barriers for widespread sport participation for those with lesser means. Non-White individuals were not prominent in creating intercollegiate athletics, participating in them during much of their history, or creating or romanticizing amateurism. Although interest convergences have enabled many non-Whites to participate in collegiate athletics, and commercialized college sports are now largely associated with Black athletes and some Black adults in leadership positions, the ideologies and practices of amateurism have continued to disproportionately reflect the ideologies and experiences of White adults ( Branch, 2011 ; Cooper, 2012, 2019 ; Edwards, 1969 ; Hruby, 2016 ; Lapchick, 2019 ; Singer, 2019 ). Furthermore, the increasing commercialization of college sports has exemplified what Cooper ( 2019 ) described as the American tradition of White Racism Capitalism. Centrally, White Racism Capitalism is the historical and continual exploitation of non-White and, especially, Black labor. In the process, non-Whites are frequently problematized, scapegoated, blamed for any relative lack of achievement, and dismissed as being unworthy of concern ( Cooper, 2012, 2019 ; Leonard, 2017 ; Singer, 2019 ). Consequently, the issues that surround compensation for collegiate athletes are racialized in many ways. Thus, we expect that racial/ethnic identities, views about racial/ethnic discrimination, and even traditionalism reflect this racialization of the notions and practices of amateurism—and U.S. adults’ public opinions about whether college athletes should be allowed to be paid.

Relatedly, remarkable changes have occurred in who participates in college sports and how amateurism has been defined. Interest convergences led NCAA schools to increasingly integrate Black athletes into their athletic programs and modify their practices of amateurism during the middle of the 20th century. The NCAA moved away from a strict definition of amateurism in 1956 by offering a scholarship to pay for college expenses based on athletic ability. Thus, challenges to racial/ethnic inequalities and increased demands for athletic talent enabled more opportunities for Black men, especially, to attend predominantly White institutions, as athletes. Increasingly, also, Black and other non-White individuals were afforded athletic scholarships. Consequently, interest convergences have allowed for more racial/ethnic diversity among college athletes. Yet, disproportionate White control of predominantly White institutions and athletic programs has persisted ( Branch, 2011 ; Cooper, 2019 ; Edwards, 1969 ; Lapchick, 2019 ). Also, the presumptive overriding concerns for a student’s personal development and educational enrichment while participating in college sports appear to have been taken over by concerns about winning, financial gains, and maintaining control over an increasingly lucrative and valuable college sports system ( Branch, 2011 ; Cooper, 2019 ; Singer, 2019 ; Southall et al., 2015 ; Southall & Southall, 2018 ; Southall & Staurowsky, 2013 ).

Indeed, the NCAA has leaned into its definition and mythologizing of amateurism over the past 75 years, especially ( Branch, 2011 ; Huma & Staurowsky, 2011 ; Meyer & Zimbalist, 2020 ; Southall & Staurowsky, 2013 ). According to the NCAA Division I Manual, intercollegiate athletes “shall be amateurs in intercollegiate sport and their participation should be motivated primarily by education and the physical, mental and social benefits to be derived. Student participation in intercollegiate athletics is an avocation, and college athletes should be protected from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises” ( National Collegiate Athletic Association [NCAA], 2019 , p. 4). Still, rule violations that have often included payments to players have remained common throughout the entire history of college sports. Also, the definition of amateurism has been fluid and flexibly applied ( Branch, 2011 ; Huma & Staurowsky, 2011 ; Meyer & Zimbalist, 2020 ).

At least through 2015, any payment amount above the standard full-ride scholarship (tuition, room, board, course-related books, and course-related fees) could cause an athlete to lose their amateur status and result in further individual or team sanctions or penalties. This applied to any extra benefit from boosters; companies seeking endorsements; or licensors of an athlete’s name, image, and likeness (NIL; Meyer & Zimbalist, 2020 ; National Collegiate Athletic Association [NCAA], 2019 ). This even extended beyond payments to actions, such as signing a professional contract, entering a professional draft, or hiring an agent. All of these occurrences have been considered violations of amateurism and a form of payment that renders an athlete a professional and terminates eligibility for intercollegiate athletics ( Meyer & Zimbalist, 2020 ; Ridpath, Kiger, Mak, Eagle, & Letter, 2007 ; Ridpath et al., 2019 ; Rudd & Ridpath, 2019 ).

However, in an attempt to provide greater flexibility in interpretation, the NCAA now consistently uses the term “collegiate model ” instead of amateurism to describe the relationship between the organization of intercollegiate athletics and the participating athletes ( Southall & Staurowsky, 2013 ). The Collegiate Model of Athletics is essentially “a term of art” that was created by former NCAA President Myles Brand ( Branch, 2011 ; Southall & Staurowsky, 2013 ). It is used to refer to enrolled students who are not directly compensated by salary for competition, but can receive whatever the NCAA allows. After significant pressure and landmark rulings in the courts, and continued record-breaking salaries and revenues from the commercialization of college sports, the NCAA passed legislation to allow a cost-of-attendance stipend starting in 2015, which allows for compensation commensurate with the average estimate of a student’s educational expenses for the period of one full academic year ( Meyer & Zimbalist, 2020 ; Nocera & Strauss, 2016 ).

More recently, California passed SB 206, the Fair Play to Play Act, into law in 2019. This will allow college athletes in the state to hire agents and earn endorsement money relating to their own NIL. Since SB 206, over 30 states have passed similar legislation regarding NIL rights, with the state of Florida notably passing legislation that speeds up the timeline for NIL opportunities to emerge in 2021. The NCAA continues to strategize about how to respond, but has indicated they will likely capitulate to the pressures to uphold key aspects of the California law and similar efforts by other states’ legislatures ( Meyer & Zimbalist, 2020 ; Seton Hall Sports Poll, 2019 ). Although the NCAA and its members have continually resisted allowing college athletes to hire agents and earn endorsement money, they seem to be now signaling that interest convergences may once again shape changes in amateurism and their willingness to partially address racial/ethnic inequalities. That is, pressures to maintain control and financial rewards in an exploitative system may urge them to change the definition of amateurism yet again and allow for some basic economic rights for college athletes. Consequently, the disproportionate numbers of Black athletes in commercialized college sports appear likely to become the most common beneficiaries of new compensation from the use of their name, images, and likenesses—which is widely seen as some measure of social justice, by many ( Branch, 2011 ; Huma & Staurowsky, 2011 ; Nocera & Strauss, 2016 ). Still, an actual pay-for-play salary has not been permissible, and it is still considered to be contrary to the promotion of the collegiate model ( Rudd & Ridpath, 2019 ; Southall & Staurowsky, 2013 ).

• Public Opinions About Allowing Athlete Compensation

Public opinion is expected to be mixed but increasingly supportive of allowing college athletes to be paid. There is increased recognition of the disparities in compensation between the adults in charge of organizing college sports and the players who are working hard and risking their health, in many cases, to compete in sports—in a hypercommercialized setting for men’s basketball and football, at least. Furthermore, basic human economic rights, to many, suggest that one should own, and be able to profit from, one’s own name recognition, images, and likenesses. Relatedly, court decisions and collective actions by athletes, activists, scholars, legislators, and attorneys are increasingly promoting and affecting changes in public opinions and policies ( Huma & Staurowsky, 2011 ; Meyer & Zimbalist, 2020 ; Seton Hall Sports Poll, 2019 ). Still, the celebration and mythologizing of amateurism, concerns about disrupting the status quo of college sports, and opposition to modifying amateurism by institutionalized stakeholders continue to hold great sway ( Meyer & Zimbalist, 2020 ; Southall & Staurowsky, 2013 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ).

Historically, in response to questions about paying college athletes and supporting college-athlete unionization movements, overall public opinion sentiment has been opposed to paying college athletes and treating them as workers ( Druckman et al., 2016 ; Mondello et al., 2013 ; Seton Hall Sports Poll, 2019 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ). However, public opinion appears to be shifting such that there is now initial evidence that it is supportive of college athletes being allowed to at least profit from the use of their NIL—still, a seemingly marked change over previous public opinion polls that consistently registered opposition to forms of compensation, beyond a college scholarship ( Druckman et al., 2016 ; Mondello et al., 2013 ; Seton Hall Sports Poll, 2019 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ). In fact, in an October 2019 poll of 714 U.S. adults, 60% responded that they believe that college athletes should be able to benefit from their NIL ( Seton Hall Sports Poll, 2019 ). In previous research, there is some evidence that sports fans are less supportive of allowing college athletes to be paid, but we suspect that this is also changing, as fans have become more comfortable with the Olympic model (i.e., sponsorship and endorsement opportunities), knowledgeable about athletic revenues, and mindful of addressing social justice concerns ( Huma & Staurowsky, 2011 ; Nocera & Strauss, 2016 ; Seton Hall Sports Poll, 2019 ).

• Race/Ethnicity and Public Opinions About Payment to College Athletes

We now turn to consider the explicit salience of racial/ethnic identities and beliefs about racial/ethnic discrimination. A CRT focus, as well as previous research and theorizing about amateurism, suggests that there are inextricable influences of racial/ethnic identities, prejudices, and knowledge of discrimination in shaping public opinions—including opinions about paying college athletes ( Druckman et al., 2016 ; Hylton, 2010 ; Krysan & Moberg, 2016 ; Mondello et al., 2013 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ).

Especially given that disproportionate percentages of athletes in the two main revenue-generating sports of football and men’s basketball are Black and disproportionate percentages of leaders in college sports organizations are White, one might expect that racial/ethnic identities and prejudices are likely to influence perceptions about whether college athletes should be allowed to be paid ( Branch, 2011 ; Gore-Mann & Grace, 2020 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ). For example, racial/ethnic in-group solidarities may shape perceptions. Blacks, Whites, Latinx individuals, and members of other racial/ethnic groups may simply want members of their own racial/ethnic group to succeed and to obtain a larger proportion of the revenue from college sports. In-group boundaries may also surround Whites and non-Whites, given the historical power imbalances in society and sports ( Hylton, 2010 ; Kendi, 2016 ; Krysan, 2000 ; Lapchick, 2019 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ).

Racial/ethnic identities may also be indicative of lived experiences that normalize, or attune one toward, the racialized power dynamics in sports and society ( Kendi, 2016 ; Lapchick, 2019 ; Leonard, 2017 ). Indeed, the origin and history of college sports and the prioritization of amateurism are rooted in White experiences and hegemonic ideals. Also, due to the overrepresentation of White males in positions of power in sports and society, Whites may be less mindful or concerned about the racialized power imbalances in sports, compared with non-Whites—even when athletes in particular sports (e.g., basketball, football, pro baseball) are disproportionately non-White ( Lapchick, 2019 ; Mondello et al., 2013 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ).

Furthermore, there is reason to believe that racial/ethnic prejudices, especially anti-Black sentiments, and beliefs about the existence and influence of racial/ethnic discrimination may shape public opinions about allowing college athletes to be paid ( Cooper, 2012, 2019 ; Druckman et al., 2016 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ). Racial/ethnic prejudices, resentments, and discriminatory processes persist in society. Also, racial resentments, beliefs about the presence and influence of discrimination, and other forms of racial/ethnic prejudice often sway public policy attitudes ( Krysan, 2000 ; Krysan & Moberg, 2016 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ; Winter, 2008 ). Anti-Black sentiment, actions, and structures continue to be especially common and influential ( Kendi, 2016 ; Krysan, 2000 ; Krysan & Moberg, 2016 ; Winter, 2008 ). Yet, many adults believe that racial/ethnic discrimination of non-Whites is not very prevalent or impactful ( Krysan & Moberg, 2016 ; Public Religious Research Institute [PRRI], 2017 ).

As commercialized college athletes are commonly recognized as being disproportionately Black and likely beneficiaries of any additional compensation that may be given to college athletes, prejudices about the character, intellectual, and athletic capacities of Black college athletes, in particular, may influence perceptions on whether college athletes should be compensated with payment beyond the cost of going to school ( Druckman et al., 2016 ; Mondello et al., 2013 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ). There continue to be widespread beliefs that racial/ethnic minority, especially Black, athletes would not be in such a premier position in college sports with access to a university education, but for their athletic ability. Thus, they should be thankful for what they already receive for playing a game and should not expect or agitate for more ( Branch, 2011 ; Druckman et al., 2016 ; Edwards, 1969 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ).

In addition, recognizing institutionalized patterns of racial/ethnic inequalities in society may urge one to perceive the NCAA system of commercialized college sports as exploitative of Black males, especially—and advocate for changes in the status quo ( Branch, 2011 ; Hylton, 2010 ; Nocera & Strauss, 2016 ; Van Rheenen, 2012 ). Indeed, sociological perspectives and CRT tenets encourage the recognition of these patterns and pushes for social justice ( Cooper, 2012, 2019 ; Edwards, 1969 ). In contrast, blaming non-Whites for not having the same levels of status attainment in society as Whites is thought to reflect symbolic racism, notions of White superiority, and a lack of a sociological imagination; thus, expressing such beliefs may reveal that one is less cognizant of racial/ethnic inequalities and maybe less motivated to advocate for eliminating them ( Krysan, 2000 ; Krysan & Moberg, 2016 ; Winter, 2008 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ).

Empirical evidence suggests that racial/ethnic identities influence public opinions about payment to college athletes. Mondello et al. ( 2013 ) analyzed 2009 national survey data from 400 households, sampled through random digit dialing, and found that Black respondents were more than three times as likely to support financial compensation for college athletes as Whites. In addition, even with age, education, gender, and employment status included as predictors, only race was found to be a statistically significant factor in shaping public opinion about paying college athletes. Similarly, Druckman et al. ( 2016 ) used national data from survey volunteers ( N  = 1,500) to assess both public opinion support for paying college athletes and allowing college athlete unionization. They also found that Blacks were especially likely to support more resources and rights for college athletes. Finally, Wallsten et al. ( 2017 ) focused on 674 White respondents to a 2014 online survey conducted by YouGov. Consistent with previous research, they found that nearly 60% of White respondents opposed paying college athletes a salary, beyond any scholarship money that they may receive. In sum, previous research suggests that Whites are especially opposed to paying college athletes and giving them more rights, while Blacks are generally supportive of paying college athletes.

Also, there is evidence that beliefs about racial/ethnic discrimination, and particularly anti-Black resentments, shape attitudes about college athlete compensation. Druckman et al. ( 2016 ) found that support for affirmative action policies, designed to account for Black–White differences in educational and job opportunities, was positively associated with support for paying college athletes and allowing them to unionize. Also, racial/ethnic prejudices that reflected anti-Black racial resentments were negatively associated with support for paying college athletes and allowing them to unionize. Similarly, Wallsten et al. ( 2017 ) found that higher levels of racial resentment were positively associated with opposing salaries for college athletes. Furthermore, in innovative experimental procedures, they found that the presentations of pictures and names of Black athletes hardened responses in opposition to supporting greater compensation for college athletes among racially resentful Whites.

Still, many individuals who do not express racial/ethnic resentments or prejudices, and are mindful of racial/ethnic discrimination patterns, appear to support college sports as a way to improve diversity and social mobility for racial/ethnic minorities—ostensibly under the belief that many could not attend college otherwise—but that support does not extend to advocating for more compensation for college athletic participation ( Huma & Staurowsky, 2011 ; Van Rheenen, 2012 ). A college education is extremely valuable, but CRT theorists and many other scholars note that even the primary college athletic scholarship benefit of greater access to a quality higher education is not being adequately delivered for Black athletes, especially, particularly in football and basketball ( Benson, 2000 ; Beamon, 2008 ; Hawkins, 2010 ; Southall et al., 2015 ; Southall & Southall, 2018 ).

Alongside CRT, the concept of aracial racism is often used to inform understandings of racialized issues ( Bonilla-Silva, 2003 ; Love & Hughey, 2015 ). Aracial racism refers to the use of purportedly noble principles, and “aracial” structures and criteria for decision making, that nonetheless often have unequal racial/ethnic effects ( Bonilla-Silva, 2003 ; Kendi, 2016 ; Rankin-Wright et al., 2016 ). White individuals, especially, are prone to deny the influence of race/ethnicity on their behaviors, beliefs, and advocacies—and become appalled and often resentful when they believe that they are being accused of being racist ( Bonilla-Silva, 2003 ; Cramer, 2016 ; Kendi, 2016 ). Yet, the origins of amateurism, the dismissal of the voice and interests of commercialized sport athletes—who are disproportionately Black—notions about racial/ethnic abilities and who is deserving of rewards, and the perpetuation of the control and disproportionate profiteering from college sports by Whites, make the issue of compensation for college athletes an eminently and inescapably racialized issue ( Branch, 2011 ; Cooper, 2012, 2019 ; Hruby, 2016 ). Still, opinions about the ideals of “amateurism,” “student-athletes,” and even the capabilities of White and Black athletes are often viewed as aracial understandings and are connected to major issues in college sports ( Druckman et al., 2016 ; Rankin-Wright et al., 2016 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ). Indeed, sports-related interactions and understandings are rife with aracial racism ( Leonard, 2017 ; Love & Hughey, 2015 ; Rankin-Wright et al., 2016 ).

• Traditionalism and Payment to College Athletes

Thus, we also drew upon understandings of traditionalism in anticipating public opinions about whether college athletes should be allowed to be paid. In this sense, traditionalism is tied up with a resistance to change and nostalgia for the past. Traditionalism is also frequently reactive to perceived threats to established ways of doing things ( Johnson & Tamney, 2001 ; Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ; Winter, 2008 ). Indeed, changes to amateurism can be seen as destroying the student-athlete ideal and threatening the uniqueness of college sports. Furthermore, traditionalism is also associated with discomfort with changes that are designed to address racial/ethnic inequalities, as well ( Jost et al., 2003 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ). For example, among conservatives, affirmative action is often viewed as “reverse racism” and eliminating racially insensitive terms and images is derided as “political correctness.” Consequently, traditionalism is commonly indicative of at least aracial racism, too ( Hochschild, 2016 ; Kendi, 2016 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ).

Traditionalism, often supported by older, White, more rural, and more conservative individuals, has led to an array of defenses of the NCAA’s definition of amateurism and resistance to allowing college athletes to be paid ( Branch, 2011 ; Cramer, 2016 ; Nocera & Strauss, 2016 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ). Foremost among these is a concern that allowing college athletes to be paid could irrevocably damage the sanctity of traditional principles that are connected to intercollegiate athletics, such as amateurism and students only playing sports for the love of the game and their institutions ( Nocera & Strauss, 2016 ; Tatos, 2017 ). There is also a fear that allowing college athletes to be paid would result in the uniqueness of college sports being destroyed, with the marketing and allure of them then becoming diminished ( Druckman et al., 2016 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ). Thus, backed by previous research findings about, particularly, age differences and political identities in supporting payment for college athletes, we anticipated that traditionalism would be associated with a resistance to allowing college athletes to be paid ( Druckman et al., 2016 ; Seton Hall Sports Poll, 2019 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ).

In fact, one of the main public relations strategies of the NCAA is to portray intercollegiate athletics as an extracurricular activity played by students and then to argue that its product would not be as popular with the public, and procompetitive with other options for consumers, if its athletes were paid a salary for performance. Then, the NCAA cites and uses public opinion as a reason to maintain a tradition of not allowing college athletes to be paid ( Southall & Staurowsky, 2013 ; Meyer & Zimbalist, 2020 ). Yet, the NCAA defined and continues to employ the “student-athlete” moniker in order to minimize the appearance of college sports operating as a business, with employers (i.e., adults in charge) and employees (i.e., college athletes). This public relations strategy has helped to uphold the myth of amateurism and the support for its ideals, especially among traditionalists ( Druckman et al., 2016 ; Nocera & Strauss, 2016 ; Van Rheenen, 2012 ).

• Other Factors

Other factors such as gender, socioeconomic status, family structures, and regional contexts may confound our understandings of the associations between race/ethnicity, traditionalism, and public opinion support for allowing college athletes to be paid. Gender may matter in that men may be more supportive of male athletes benefitting from the revenue that is produced through their labor; similarly, women may be especially concerned about the Title IX and gender equity implications of allowing college athletes to be paid ( Meyer & Zimbalist, 2020 ; Sanderson & Siegfried, 2015 ; Staurowsky, 2018 ). Socioeconomic status may also shape one’s resistance to changing the status quo, with more privileged individuals likely being less amenable to change ( Druckman et al., 2016 ; Van Rheenen, 2012 ). Family structures may influence perceptions as well, as intimate partners and kin may shape one’s opinions. Finally, geographic region may correlate with public opinions, especially since the landmark passage of the California law that allows for endorsement opportunities, with persons from the West potentially being more supportive of allowing college athletes to be paid, compared with others ( Gore-Mann & Grace, 2020 ; Seton Hall Sports Poll, 2019 ).

Overall, the conceptual framework for this study and previous research leads to four main hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: There will be substantial, but mixed, support for allowing college athletes to be paid. Yet, adults’ sports involvement will be positively associated with support for allowing college athletes to be paid.

Hypothesis 2: Racial/ethnic identities will be predictive of support for allowing college athletes to be paid. White identities will be negatively, and Black identities will be positively, associated with support for allowing college athletes to be paid.

Hypothesis 3: Recognition of racial/ethnic discrimination will be positively associated with support for allowing college athletes to be paid.

Hypothesis 4: Traditionalism will be negatively associated with support for allowing college athletes to be paid. That is, older, less urban, and more conservative individuals will be less supportive of allowing college athletes to be paid.

We used data from the National Sports and Society Survey (NSASS), a landmark new survey that offers a wealth of information about sports and society issues from a large sample of U.S. adults ( N  = 3,993). The NSASS was explicitly created to enable comprehensive and wide-ranging social science research projects on sports and society issues. Thus, it is well suited for our focus on public opinions about allowing college athletes to be paid. The sample for the NSASS was drawn from participants in the American Population Panel, a panel of over 20,000 volunteers who have signed up to be invited to participate in social science research surveys. The American Population Panel was created by the Center for Human Resource Research, a longstanding and respected survey research organization, which also collaborated in the design and data collection of the NSASS.

The NSASS was designed as a quota sample of N  = 4,000 to maximize its sample size within a fixed budget that demanded timely and economically efficient data collection. Between the fall of 2018 and spring of 2019, American Population Panel members who reported years of birth that were 21–65 years ago were sent invitations to take the NSASS. The survey was offered online, and respondents were given $35 for their participation. The respondents represented all 50 states and Washington, DC, but were disproportionately female, White, and Midwestern  ( Knoester & Cooksey, 2020 ). Still, the large sample of the NSASS offers unique information across many different subgroups. Furthermore, the data were being weighted to offer more representative descriptive statistics about U.S. adults.

In the present study, we initially utilized a sample that consists of the 3,868 NSASS respondents who answered ( N  = 125 of the total 3,993 NSASS respondents refused to answer) a survey question about allowing college athletes to be paid, in order to report estimates of U.S. adult public opinions about the issue of college athlete compensation. That is, we first considered the responses from the participants who indicated some level of (dis)agreement about allowing college athletes to be paid—or that they “Don’t Know.” Then, for our regression analyses, we employed a primary sample ( N  = 3,519) that further removed the 349 respondents who replied with “Don’t Know.” The decision to eliminate “Don’t Know” responses from our main analysis follows previous research ( Mondello et al., 2013 ). Missing data for our predictor variables were addressed with the use of multiple imputations with chained equations, a preferred approach for dealing with missing data. Nonetheless, our results are robust to the use of listwise deletion of missing data, as well. Sensitivity analyses that considered Don’t Know responses as a middle response category and others that coded support for allowing college athletes to be paid as a binary variable produced results that are consistent with what is reported in the present study.

• Dependent and Independent Variables

The dependent variable for this study indicates support for allowing college athletes to be paid. It is an ordinal variable that represents responses (1 =  strongly disagree , 2 =  somewhat disagree , 3 =  somewhat agree , and 4 =  strongly agree ) to the statement “College athletes should be allowed to be paid, as athletes, more than it costs them to go to school.”

The primary independent variables include measures of adults’ racial/ethnic identities, beliefs about racial/ethnic discrimination, traditionalism, and sports involvement. Racial/ethnic identities were coded with mutually exclusive dummy variables that indicate whether one self-identified as only White (used as the reference category), (any) Black, (non-Black) Latinx, or another racial/ethnic identity. Recognition of racial/ethnic discrimination is a variable that was formed from responses (1 =  strongly disagree , 2 =  somewhat disagree , 3 =  somewhat agree , and 4 =  strongly agree ) to the following statement: “On average, non-whites have worse jobs, income, and housing than white people. Do you think these differences are … mainly due to discrimination?”

Indicators of traditionalism include measures of adults’ age, urbanicity, and self-reported conservatism. Age was coded with dummy variables for being (a) ≤30 years old (used as the reference category), (b) 31–40, (c) 41–50, or (d) 51 or above. Similarly, urbanicity was coded with mutually exclusive dummy variables that indicate self-reports of living in a (a) large city, (b) suburb near a large city, (c) small city or town, or (d) rural area. Conservatism was created based on responses to the question “In terms of politics, do you consider yourself … ?” The response options range from 1 =  Very liberal to 5 =  Very conservative .

Adults’ sports involvement includes reports of sports fandom, sports participation, and whether one was ever an athlete on a college team. Sports fandom was formed from responses (0 =  Not at all ; 4 =  Very much so ) to the question: “Are you a sports fan?” Sports participation indicates whether the adults reported (1 =  yes ) playing a sport(s) regularly (i.e., more than occasionally), over the past year. Finally, college athlete status indicates whether the adults reported (1 =  yes ) playing on a college team in their responses to either of two questions. Specifically, the respondents were asked a series of questions about the sport that they played the most while growing up (i.e., through age 18). One question asked them to identify all of the levels (e.g., youth recreational, high school varsity, college team, etc.) at which they played this sport while growing up. Later, the respondents were asked to identify all of the levels at which they played this sport since the age of 19 years.

• Control Variables

Finally, background characteristics such as gender, socioeconomic status, family structure, and geographic region served as control variables for our analyses. Gender was based on reports of identifying as female (1 =  yes ). Educational attainment variables, which were drawn from reports of the respondents’ highest level of education, consisted of mutually exclusive dummy variables that indicated whether the respondents attained a (a) college (used as the reference category), (b) some college, or (c) high school or less education. Household income (in $10,000s, up to 15+) and working in paid labor (1 =  yes ) were reported by the respondents and were also used as socioeconomic status indicators. Family structure measures were created from reports of marital status (i.e., married, cohabiting, or single [used as the reference category]) and the number of one’s own minor children or one’s partner’s minor children who were living in the household. Finally, census regions were coded as proxies for geographical contexts (i.e., West [used as the reference category], Midwest, Northeast, and South).

To analyze public opinions about allowing college athletes to be paid, we first examined the distribution of responses about allowing college athletes to be paid. Then, we proceeded to predicting public opinions about allowing college athletes to be paid in a series of nested, ordinal logistic regression models.

Consistent with our first hypothesis, there is mixed but substantial support for allowing college athletes to be paid. Specifically, 25% of the NSASS respondents strongly disagreed, 19% somewhat disagreed, 25% somewhat agreed, and 23% strongly agreed with allowing college athletes to be paid, as athletes, more than it costs them to go to school; 9% of the NSASS respondents indicated that they didn’t know. Thus, overall, a plurality of the NSASS respondents endorses allowing college athletes to be paid. As shown in Table  1 , among the adults who provided a response that indicated support or opposition (i.e., after removing the “Don’t Know” responses for our main regression analyses), over half of the NSASS respondents reported agreement with allowing college athletes to be paid.

Descriptive Statistics for All Variables Used in the Regression Analyses

Note . N  = 3,519.

a The response options that are used for descriptive analyses of public opinions include the following: (a) strongly disagree, (b) somewhat disagree, (c) somewhat agree, (d) strongly agree, and (e) don’t know.

Next, to better estimate public opinions about allowing college athletes to be paid among all U.S. adults, we used poststratification weighting based on the 2018 American Community Survey demographic characteristics. This procedure generates more accurate estimates of U.S. adults’ public opinions, because the American Community Survey is a preeminent compilation of yearly population estimates, based on millions of households that are surveyed by the U.S. Census Bureau, whereas, the NSASS respondents are disproportionately female, White, and Midwestern, for example. These weighted NSASS estimates are displayed in Figure  1 and indicate greater support for allowing college athletes to be paid, as compared with the unweighted estimates. As shown in Figure  1 , the weighted estimates of support for allowing college athletes to be paid, as athletes, more than it costs them to go to school suggest that 51% of U.S. adults ages 20–64 support allowing college athletes to be paid, 41% of adults do not support allowing college athletes to be paid, and 8% of adults do not know.

—Weighted comparison estimates of public opinion support for allowing college athletes to be paid, among U.S. Adults. Note . These NSASS estimates are weighted according to 2018 American Community Survey demographics for U.S. adults aged 20–64, based on age, gender, race, education, work status, marital status, income, and region. NSASS = National Sports and Society Survey.

Citation: Sociology of Sport Journal 38, 4; 10.1123/ssj.2020-0015

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

We now turn to predicting public opinions about allowing college athletes to be paid in ordinal logistic regression models. These results are shown in Table  2 . We first focused on racial/ethnic identities and other common demographic characteristics; to do so, we initially emphasized White/non-White differences and then used White as a reference category. As displayed in Model 1, and anticipated by our second hypothesis, the individuals who identified as White (only) were 36% less likely than non-Whites to strongly agree that college athletes should be allowed to be paid, as opposed to another response option ( b  = −0.44, p  < .001, odds ratio [OR] = 0.64). Also, as predicted in our fourth hypothesis, there is evidence that older generations of adults are less likely to support allowing college athletes to be paid. Compared with adults ages 30 years or younger, adults ages 41–50 ( b  = −0.37, p  < .001, OR = 0.69) and ages 51+ ( b  = −0.64, p  < .001, OR = 0.53) are markedly less likely to support allowing college athletes to be paid. Although gender is not a focus of this study, it is also striking that women ( b  = −0.51, p  < .001, OR = 0.60) are much less likely than men to support allowing college athletes to be paid. One interpretation of this finding is that women may be disproportionately concerned about the implications that allowing college athletes to be paid may have on gender equity in college sports.

Results From Ordinal Logistic Regressions Predicting Public Opinion Support for Allowing College Athletes to Be Paid

Note. N  = 3,519. OR = odds ratio.

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

As shown in Model 2 of Table  2 , and anticipated by our second hypothesis, Black adults ( b  = 0.91, p  < .001, OR = 2.50) were especially supportive of allowing college athletes to be paid. In fact, they were 2.5 times as likely as Whites to strongly agree that college athletes should be allowed to be paid, as athletes, more than it costs them to go to school. Latinx adults ( b  = 0.23, p  < .05, OR = 1.26) were also more likely than Whites to support allowing college athletes to be paid. Thus, moving forward, based on our conceptual framework, these empirical results, and our indicator of recognizing White/non-White discrimination, we only include a White/non-White racial/ethnic indicator in our models.

Model 3 includes the addition of adult sports involvement indicators. Consistent with our first hypothesis, we found that sports fandom is positively associated with support for allowing college athletes to be paid ( b  = 0.16, p  < .001, OR = 1.17). Little else changes in Model 3 when compared with previous models, as expected.

Finally, in Model 4, we showed the results after including additional indicators of traditionalism and discrimination into the previous model. As anticipated by our third hypothesis, a greater recognition of the influence of racial/ethnic discrimination was positively associated with support for allowing college athletes to be paid ( b  = 0.25, p  < .001, OR = 1.28). Also, consistent with our fourth hypothesis, urbanicity and conservatism were associated with support for paying college athletes, in expected directions. That is, conservatism was negatively associated with support for allowing college athletes to be paid. Also, compared with living in a large city, living in a suburb ( b  = −0.20, p  < .05, OR = 0.82), a town or small city ( b  = −0.35, p  < .001, OR = 0.70), or in a rural area ( b  = −32, p  < .001, OR = 0.72) was negatively associated with support for allowing college athletes to be paid.

The present study sought to advance research by analyzing the patterns and predictors of public opinions about allowing college athletes to be paid, as athletes, more than it costs them to go to school. This research is particularly important because there are vast and longstanding racial/ethnic inequalities in the production and receipt of revenue that is tied to college sports ( Branch, 2011 ; Nocera & Strauss, 2016 , Smith, 2009 ). Furthermore, the recent passage of The Fair Pay to Play Act, and related legislation efforts, has challenged the status quo of defining amateurism ( Meyer & Zimbalist, 2020 ; Nocera & Strauss, 2016 ). As the NCAA and member schools continue to negotiate a strategic response to this new challenge, they have argued and cited that college sports are unique, and celebrated, because the athletes are not allowed to be paid, as athletes, more than it costs them to go to school ( Meyer & Zimbalist, 2020 ; Sack & Staurowsky, 1998 ; Southall & Staurowsky, 2013 ).

The present study offers valuable new insights into the extent to which public opinions are aligned with these traditional NCAA defenses of their view of amateurism. We went beyond previous research by assessing responses to a recent survey question from new landmark data that gets to the heart of the current debate about amateurism. In asking about support for allowing college athletes to be paid, rather than asking about whether or not they should be paid or opinions about the precise mechanisms and amounts of payment, the question focuses on support for college athletes’ basic economic rights. We uniquely utilized a series of multiple regressions to assess the extent to which various factors, including indicators of racial/ethnic identities, beliefs about racial/ethnic discrimination, and traditionalism, predict public opinions about allowing college athletes to be paid. Finally, we advanced a conceptual framework for understanding public opinions about allowing college athletes to be paid that emphasized CRT tenets and the roles of both race/ethnicity and traditionalism in shaping public opinions. Below, we review the support that emerged for these hypotheses and further contextualize our findings.

Our first hypothesis anticipated that there would be substantial, but mixed, public opinion support for allowing college athletes to be paid. It also anticipated that adults’ sports involvement would be positively associated with support for allowing college athletes to be paid. In fact, we did find support for these expectations. Both weighted and unweighted data indicate that U.S. adults are now prone to support allowing college athletes to be paid. Nonetheless, over 40% of U.S. and NSASS adults seem to still disagree that college athletes should be allowed to be paid, as athletes, more than it costs them to go to school. This finding is consistent with recent research from a Seton Hall Sports Poll ( N  = 714) that found that 60% of U.S. adults endorsed college athletes being able to profit from the use of their name, image, or likeness ( Seton Hall Sports Poll, 2019 ). We also found evidence that sports fandom is positively associated with support for college athletes being allowed to be paid, in our regression models. Thus, in contrast with the fears of the NCAA and its member schools, it appears that sports fans are now especially likely to endorse allowing college athletes to be paid. Overall, it seems that most U.S. adults support changes in the notions of amateurism in college sports, notions that were born from White privilege and that have served as flexible, lucrative, and exploitative ideals ( Branch, 2011 ; Hruby, 2016 ; Smith, 2009 ; Southall & Staurowsky, 2013 ). Indeed, CRT suggests that Black male athletes are particularly exploited and that changes in the ideologies and practices of amateurism in college sports are necessary for social justice ( Branch, 2011 ; Cooper, 2012, 2019 ; Huma & Staurowsky, 2011 ; Singer, 2019 ; Southall et al., 2015 ; Southall & Southall, 2018 ).

Our second and third hypotheses looked at the salience of race/ethnicity, through racial/ethnic identities and beliefs about racial/ethnic discrimination, in predicting support for allowing college athletes to be paid. First, we anticipated that identifying as White would be especially likely to be negatively, and identifying as Black positively, associated with support for allowing college athletes to be paid. Indeed, our regression results indicated that White adults were consistently less likely than non-White adults, and especially Black adults, to endorse allowing college athletes to be paid. This finding is consistent with previous research that notes Black–White differences in adults’ views about paying college athletes, but also extends the analyses and findings to other non-White racial/ethnic groups ( Branch, 2011 ; Mondello et al., 2013 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ). As part of this pattern, and informed by CRT, it seems probable that in-group loyalties, unique lived experiences, and patterned perspectives about the promises and deliveries of amateur ideals are at work, especially in the case of Black adults wanting to see the labor of young Black athletes being appropriately rewarded—in a society that has perpetually exploited non-White and particularly Black labor ( Branch, 2011 ; Cooper, 2012, 2019 ; Krysan, 2000 ; Mondello et al., 2013 ; Smith, 2009 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ).

Second, we expected to find that recognition of racial/ethnic discrimination would be positively associated with support for allowing college athletes to be paid. Indeed, this is what we found. Consistent with previous theorizing and research, this result suggests that CRT and sociological perspectives, which emphasize and criticize the prevalence and effects of racial/ethnic inequalities, encourage one to make connections between general patterns of racial/ethnic discrimination and the exploitative nature of commercialized college sports ( Branch, 2011 ; Cooper, 2012, 2019 ; Huma & Staurowsky, 2011 ; Krysan, 2000 ; Krysan & Moberg, 2016 ). Furthermore, our finding corresponds with previous research on how racial/ethnic prejudices and resentments, sometimes indicated by a lack of awareness of systematic racial/ethnic discrimination, shape attitudes about college athletes being paid ( Cooper, 2012 ; Krysan & Moberg, 2016 ; Mondello et al., 2013 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ). Specifically, as Afro-Pessimist scholars emphasize, anti-Black sentiments and practices are particularly prevalent and influential ( Cooper, 2019 ; Kendi, 2016 ; Krysan & Moberg, 2016 ; Olaloku-Teriba, 2018 ; Sexton, 2016 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ), although, in the present study, we focused on racial/ethnic prejudices and beliefs about discrimination that affect non-Whites. Beliefs and practices that adversely affect non-Whites, as opposed to just Blacks, are also common and have been largely neglected in public opinion research ( Delgado Bernal, 2002 ; Krysan, 2000 ; Krysan & Moberg, 2016 ; Public Religious Research Institute [PRRI], 2017 ).

Finally, our final hypothesis anticipated that indicators of traditionalism would be negatively associated with support for allowing college athletes to be paid. We viewed traditionalism as emblematic of a resistance to change the status quo; in this case, the status quo refers to the tradition of NCAA-defined amateurism in college sports. Yet, our indicators of traditionalism—age, urbanicity, and conservatism—are also commonly associated with racial/ethnic prejudice ( Bonilla-Silva, 2003 ; Crowder & Krysan, 2016 ; Winter, 2008 ). Furthermore, as our conceptual framework and CRT observations highlight, the history of amateurism in college sports in America is born out of, and continually infused with, racial/ethnic prejudices, inequalities, and exploitation. Thus, it was not surprising to find that older generations, adults who did not live in large cities, and self-identified conservatives were less likely to advocate for allowing college athletes to be paid. In fact, the processes that encourage a resistance to change the status quo in collegiate athletics may be akin to the processes of encouraging resistance to modifying other policies (e.g., affirmative action, criminal justice reform, welfare policies) in ways that are expected to alleviate racial/ethnic inequalities, injustices, and sufferings for social justice ( Bonilla-Silva, 2003 ; Cramer, 2016 ; Druckman et al., 2016 ; Kendi, 2016 ; Winter, 2008 ).

Overall, the results of the present study bring to light evidence of majority support for allowing college athletes to be paid, as athletes, more than it costs them to go to school. In fact, this support appears to be highest among passionate sports fans. Yet, we find that Whiteness and a lack of recognition of racial/ethnic discrimination are significant predictors of believing that college athletes should not be allowed to be paid. Although expected, this is concerning, due to the historic and continual racial/ethnic discrimination that has led to, defended, and prioritized White voices, experiences, statuses, and control in society, including in the realm of sports ( Branch, 2011 ; Kendi, 2016 ; Nocera & Strauss, 2016 ; Lapchick, 2019 ). Notions of White supremacy in abilities and character and a comfort with exploiting non-White and especially Black labor are endemic to this history ( Bonilla-Silva, 2003 ; Branch, 2011 ; Kendi, 2016 ). Indeed, the results of our study and previous work suggest that norms of White power and control, notions of White supremacy, and, especially, anti-Blackness are linked to attitudes about allowing college athletes to be paid, although this issue is commonly seen as “aracial.” In society, traditionalism frequently acts to resist and obstruct attempts at addressing racial/ethnic inequalities, including in sports ( Kendi, 2016 ; Lapchick, 2019 ; Nocera & Strauss, 2016 ; Winter, 2008 ). Consequently, it is notable that, in this study, traditionalism seemed to generate opposition to allowing college athletes to be paid, too. A sociological perspective, CRT tenets, and an antiracist approach, defined as working to enact racial/ethnic equalities, suggest that changes in the ideologies, practices, and policies of college sports are needed ( Branch, 2011 ; Cooper, 2012, 2019 ; Huma & Staurowsky, 2011 ; Kendi, 2016 ; Singer, 2019 ).

There are limitations to note this study. For example, the NSASS respondents were survey volunteers and not randomly selected. Thus, their responses may not accurately reflect the characteristics and beliefs of the general U.S. adult population—even after introducing statistical controls. In addition, we relied on closed-ended survey question responses in analyzing the factors that lead adults to formulate their opinions about allowing college athletes to be paid. Future work may complement this focus by further investigating how people view this issue, in their own words and in greater detail. Finally, comprehensive analyses in future research are needed to consider how intersectionality considerations, particularly between race/ethnicity and gender, may better inform our understandings of college athlete experiences and U.S. adults’ public opinions about the structures and practices of college sports.

Nonetheless, this study improves our understanding of the extent to which U.S. adults support allowing college athletes the right to be paid as athletes. It offers new information that suggests that most adults now support this right. In fact, our findings fit nicely into the recognition of an upward trend over recent years in support for allowing college athletes to be paid ( Seton Hall Sports Poll, 2019 ). Currently, sports fans appear mostly in favor of allowing college athletes the right to be paid. Yet, beliefs about payment to college athletes are integrally intertwined with race/ethnicity and traditionalism. White adults are especially likely to oppose payment to college athletes, Black adults are particularly likely to endorse payment, and the recognition of racial/ethnic discrimination appears to encourage support for allowing college athletes to be paid, as athletes, more than it costs them to go to school. Finally, indicators of traditionalism, such as old age, residence outside of large cities, and conservatism, seem to galvanize levels of resistance to allowing college athletes to be paid. Yet, although previous research and a CRT interpretation of these findings point to continued challenges, and defenses, of the status quo in college sports, they also suggest another likely set of interest convergences is ahead ( Druckman et al., 2016 ; Hylton, 2010 ; Lapchick, 2019 ; Leonard, 2017 ; Wallsten et al., 2017 ). Apparently, increasing public opinion support for allowing college athletes to be paid and market pressures from The Fair Pay to Play Act and other related legislation seem to be pushing the NCAA and its member schools to enact more socially just policies and practices ( Meyer & Zimbalist, 2020 ; National Collegiate Athletic Association [NCAA], 2020 ). Future research should seek to extend this work and continue to explore public opinions about the structure and historic ideals of college sports—and their links to race/ethnicity and traditionalism.

• Acknowledgments

The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments. The NSASS was generously funded and supported by the College of Arts & Sciences, the Sports and Society Initiative, and CHRR at The Ohio State University.

Beamon , K. ( 2008 ). Used goods: Former African American college student-athletes’ perception of exploitation by Division I universities . Journal of Negro Education, 77, 352 – 364 .

• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Bell , D. ( 1992 ). Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism . New York, NY : Basic Books .

Bell , D.A. ( 1980 ). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma . Harvard Law Review, 93 ( 3 ), 518 – 533 . doi:10.2307/1340546

Benson , K. ( 2000 ). Constructing academic inadequacy: African American athletes’ stories of schooling . The Journal of Higher Education, 71 ( 2 ), 223 – 246 .

Berkowitz , S. , Upton , J. , & Brady , E. ( 2013 ). Most NCAA Division I athletic departments take subsidies . USA Today . Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-financessubsidies/2142443

Bonilla-Silva , E. ( 2003 ). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in America. New York : Rowman & Littlefield .

Branch , T. ( 2011 ). The shame of college sports . The Atlantic . Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/8643

Comeaux , E. ( 2010 ). Racial differences in faculty perceptions of collegiate student-athletes’ academic and post-undergraduate achievements . Sociology of Sport Journal, 27 ( 4 ), 390 – 412 . doi:10.1123/ssj.27.4.390

Cooper , J.N. ( 2012 ). Personal troubles and public issues: A sociological imagination of Black athletes’ experiences at predominantly white institutions in the United States . Sociology Mind, 2 ( 3 ), 261 – 271 . doi:10.4236/sm.2012.23035

Cooper , J.N. ( 2019 ). From exploitation back to empowerment: Black male holistic (under)development through sport and (mis)education . New York : Peter Lang .

Cramer , K.J. ( 2016 ). The politics of resentment: Rural consciousness in Wisconsin and the rise of Scott Walker . Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press .

Crowder , K. , & Krysan , M. ( 2016 ). Moving beyond the big three: A call for new approaches to studying racial residential segregation . City & Community, 15 ( 1 ), 18 – 22 . doi:10.1111/cico.12148

Delgado Bernal , D. ( 2002 ). Critical race theory, Latino critical theory, and critical raced-gendered epistemologies: Recognizing students of color as holders and creators of knowledge . Qualitative Inquiry, 8 ( 1 ), 105 – 126 . doi:10.1177/107780040200800107

Delgado , R. , & Stefancic , J. ( 2001 ). Critical race theory: An introduction . New York : New York University Press .

Druckman , J. , Howat , A. , & Rodheim , A. ( 2016 ) The influence of race on attitudes about college athletics . Sport in Society, 19 ( 7 ), 1020 – 1039 . doi:10.1080/17430437.2015.1096250

Edwards , H. ( 1969 ). Revolt of the black athlete . New York : Free Press .

Gore-Mann , D. , & Grace , D. ( 2020 , January 9 ). Pay for student-athletes is a racial justice issue . SFchronicle.com . Retrieved from https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Pay-for-student-athletes-is-a-racial-justice-issue-14960591.php

Harper , S.R. , & Simmons , I. ( 2019 ). Black students at public colleges and universities: A 50-state report card. Los Angeles : University of Southern California, Race and Equity Center .

Harris , C.I. ( 1993 ). Whiteness as property . Harvard Law Review, 106 ( 8 ), 1707 – 1791 . doi:10.2307/1341787

Hawkins , B. ( 2010 ). The new plantation. New York : Palgrave Macmillan .

Hochschild , A.R. ( 2016 ). Strangers in their own land: Anger and mourning on the American right . New York : New Press .

Hruby , P. ( 2016 ). Four years a student-athlete: The racial injustice of big-time college sports . Vice Sports . Retrieved from https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ezexjp/four-years-a-student-athlete-the-racial-injustice-of-big-time-college-sports

Huma , R. , & Staurowsky , E. ( 2011 ). The price of poverty in big time college sport . National College Players Association. Retrieved from http://www.ncpanow.org/research/body/The-Price-of-Poverty-in-Big-Time-College-Sport.pdf

Hylton , K. ( 2010 ). How a turn to critical race theory can contribute to our understanding of “race”, racism and anti-racism in sport . International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 45 ( 3 ), 335 – 354 . doi:10.1177/1012690210371045

Johnson , S.D. , & Tamney , J.B. ( 2001 ). Social traditionalism and economic conservatism: Two conservative political ideologies in the United States . The Journal of Social Psychology, 141 ( 2 ), 233 – 243 . PubMed ID: 11372568 doi:10.1080/00224540109600549

Jost , J.T. , Glaser , J. , Kruglanski , A.W. , & Sulloway , F.J. ( 2003 ). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition . Psychological Bulletin, 129 ( 3 ), 339 – 375 . PubMed ID: 12784934 doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339

Kendi , I.X. ( 2016 ). Stamped from the beginning: The definitive history of racist ideas in America . New York : Nation Books .

Knoester , C. , & Cooksey , E.C. ( 2020 ). The National Sports and Society Survey methodological summary . doi:10.31235/osf.io/mv76p

Krysan , M. ( 2000 ). Prejudice, politics, and public opinion: Understanding the sources of racial policy attitudes . Annual Review of Sociology, 26 ( 1 ), 135 – 168 . doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.135

Krysan , M. , & Moberg , S. ( 2016 ). Trends in racial attitudes . University of Illinois Institute of Governement and Public Affairs. Retrieved from http://igpa.uillinois.edu/programs/racial-attitudes

Lapchick , R. ( 2019 ). The 2018 racial and gender report card . The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport. Retrieved from https://43530132-36e9-4f52-811a-182c7a91933b.filesusr.com/ugd/7d86e5_b9332a76bbf342c2b44d40cb47e09f79.pdf

Leonard , D. ( 2017 ). Playing while White: Privilege and power on and off the field . Seattle : University of Washington Press .

Love , A. , & Hughey , M. ( 2015 ). Out of bounds? Racial discourse on college basketball message boards . Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38 ( 6) , 877 – 893 , doi:10.1080/01419870.2014.967257

Meyer , J. , & Zimbalist , A. ( 2020 ). A win win: College athletes get paid for their names, images, and likenesses and colleges maintain the primacy of academics . Harvard Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law, 11, 247 – 303 . Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3590190

Mondello , M. , Piquero , A. , Leeper Piquero , N. , Gertz , M. , & Bratton , J. ( 2013 ) Public perceptions on paying student athletes , Sport in Society, 16 ( 1) , 106 – 119 . doi:10.1080/17430437.2012.690408.

National Collegiate Athletic Association [NCAA] . ( 2019 ). 2019-20 NCAA Division I Manual . Retrieved from https://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4577-2019-2020-ncaa-division-i-manual-august-version-available-for-presell-now.aspx

National Collegiate Athletic Association [NCAA] . ( 2020 ). NCAA Board of Governors: Federal and state legislation working group . Final report and recommendations. Retrieved from https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committees/ncaa/wrkgrps/fslwg/Apr2020FSLWG_Report.pdf

Nocera , J. , & Strauss , B. ( 2016 ). Indentured: The inside story of the rebellion against the NCAA . New York : Portfolio

Olaloku-Teriba , A. ( 2018 ). Afro-pessimism and the (un)logic of anti-blackness . Historical Materialism, 26 ( 2 ), 96 – 122 . doi:10.1163/1569206X-00001650

Price , V. , & Neijens , P. ( 1997 ). Opinion quality in public opinion research . International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 9 ( 4 ), 336 – 360 . doi:10.1093/ijpor/9.4.336

Public Religious Research Institute [PRRI] . ( 2017 ). Majority of Americans oppose transgender bathroom restrictions . Retrieved from http://www.prri.org/research/lgbt-transgender-bathroom-discrimination-religious-liberty/

Rankin-Wright , A.J. , Hylton , K. , & Norman , L. ( 2016 ). Off-colour landscape: Framing race equality in sport coaching . Sociology of Sport Journal, 33 ( 4 ), 357 – 368 . doi:10.1123/ssj.2015-0174

Ridpath , B.D. , Kiger , J. , Mak , J. , Eagle , T. , & Letter , G. ( 2007 ). Factors that influence the academic performance of NCAA Division I athletes . The SMART Journal, 4 ( 1 ), 59 – 83 .

Ridpath , B.D. , Rudd , A. , & Stokowski , S. ( 2019 ). Perceptions of European athletes that attend American colleges and universities for elite athletic development and higher education access . Journal of Global Sport Management, 5 ( 1 ), 34 – 61 . doi:10.1080/24704067.2019.1636402

Rudd , A. , & Ridpath , B.D. ( 2019 ). Education versus athletics: What will Division I football and basketball players choose? Journal of Amateur Sport, 5 ( 1 ), 76 – 95 . doi:10.17161/jas.v5i1.7731

Sack , A.L. , & Staurowsky , E.J. ( 1998 ). College athletes for hire . Westport, CT : Praeger .

Sanderson , A. , & Siegfried , J. ( 2015 ). “The case for paying college athletes .” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29 ( 1 ), 115 – 138 . doi:10.1257/jep.29.1.115

Seton Hall Sports Poll . ( 2019 ). American public supports college athletes receiving endorsement money, As approved in California this week . Retrieved from https://www.shu.edu/sports-poll/upload/Oct-3-2019-Endorsement-money.pdf

Sexton , J. ( 2016 ). Afro-pessimism: The unclear ord . Rhizomes: Cultural Studies in Emerging Knowledge, 29 . doi:10.20415/rhiz/029.e02

Shaw , A.A. , Moiseichik , M. , Blunt-Vinti , H. , & Stokowski , S. ( 2019 ). Measuring racial competence in athletic academic support staff members . Sociology of Sport Journal, 36 ( 2 ), 162 – 170 . doi:10.1123/ssj.2018-0062

Singer , J. ( 2019 ). Race, sports and education: Improving opportunities and outcomes for Black male college athletes. Cambridge : Harvard Education Press .

Smith , E. ( 2009 ). Race, sport, and the American dream . Durham, NC : Carolina Academic Press .

Solorzano , D.G. , & Yosso , T.J. ( 2001 ) Critical race and LatCrit theory and method: Counter-storytelling . International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14 ( 4 ): 471 – 495 . doi:10.1080/09518390110063365

Southall , R.M. , Eckard , W. , Nagel , M. , & Randall , M. ( 2015 ) Athletic success and NCAA profit-athletes’ adjusted graduation gaps . Sociology of Sport Journal, 32 ( 4 ), 395 – 414 . doi:10.1123/ssj.2014-0156

Southall , R.M. , & Southall , C.R. ( 2018 ). The National Collegiate Athletic Association’s “Nothing short of remarkable” Rebranding of academic success . In R. King-White (Ed.), Sport and the Neoliberal University: Profit, Politics, and Pedagogy (pp.  131 – 152 ). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press .

Southall , R.M. , & Staurowsky , E.J. ( 2013 ). Cheering on the collegiate model: Creating, disseminating, and imbedding the NCAA’s redefinition of amateurism . Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 37 ( 4 ), 403 – 429 . doi:10.1177/0193723513498606

Staurowsky , E.J. ( 2018 ). College athletes as employees and the politics of Title IX . In R. King-White (Ed.), Sport and the Neoliberal University: Profit, politics, and pedagogy (pp.  97 – 128 ). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press .

Tatos , T. ( 2017 ). Deconstructing the NCAA’s procompetitive justifications to demonstrate antitrust injury and calculate lost compensation: The evidence against NCAA amateurism . The Antitrust Bulletin, 62 ( 1 ), 184 – 236 . doi:10.1177/0003603X16688968

Van Rheenen , D. ( 2012 ). Exploitation in college sports: Race, revenue, and educational reward . International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 48 ( 5 ), 550 – 571 . doi:10.1177/1012690212450218

Wallsten , K. , Nteta , T.M. , McCarthy , L.A. , & Tarsi , M.R. ( 2017 ). Prejudice or principled conservatism? Racial resentment and white opinion toward paying college athletes . Political Research Quarterly, 70 ( 1 ), 209 – 222 . doi:10.1177/1065912916685186

Winter , N.J.G. ( 2008 ). Dangerous frames: How ideas about race & gender shape public opinion . Chicago : University of Chicago Press .

* Knoester is with The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. Ridpath is with the Department of Sports Administration, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA.

Sociology of Sport Journal

Related Articles

Article sections.

• View raw image
• Download Powerpoint Slide

Article Metrics

• Chris Knoester
• B. David Ridpath

Google Scholar

© 2024 Human Kinetics

Powered by:

• [185.66.15.189]
• 185.66.15.189

Character limit 500 /500

Should College Athletes Be Paid?

Example of Introduction to Essay on Should College Athletes Be Paid

There are many debates about college athletes and reasons for paying or not paying them. Supporters of paying the athletes are convinced that college athletes deserve to be paid just like any other athlete because they are doing their professional tasks. There are also critics who state that college athletes should not get paid for the reason that their college sports life is a great practice for the future, but it should not be regarded as a work, but as an opportunity. Personally, I believe that college athletes have to be paid, because this way, it would be possible for them to focus on sports development instead of worrying about financial matters; moreover, college sports can be regarded as a first professional job that has to be paid accordingly.

Example of Body Paragraphs to Essay on Should College Athletes Be Paid

At the present moment, many people state that college athletes should not be paid since they already receive a scholarship (Prewitt). A lot of people defend such a position stating that paying money to college athletes would put other students in an unfair position (Block). Nevertheless, I would like to contradict such an opinion. It is true that college athletes are on scholarship. Nevertheless, it does not provide them with everything, and they often have to work in order to make extra money, which is needed (Hartnett). Hence, they end up studying, working as well as training; and that is an unfair position. Since they have to spend time working, they have less time training or studying, and the quality of these things may decrease. Thus, it is much smarter to pay college athletes so they would be able to focus on sports instead of wasting their energy on things, which are not connected to their future careers.

Also, college athletes bring a lot of revenues to their colleges, and that is why these people deserve compensation (Inside Story Team). It is only logical for people who do their professional job to get paid for it. After all, the scholarship is for people to train and study, but an actual salary could motivate sportsmen more. It is also important to mention that college sports are no longer about mere games between students. At the present moment, it is a huge business, which attracts a lot of advertisers, businesses, and, obviously, fans (Nocera). Thus, it has become a sphere with big money flowing around, and athletes are the ones attracting money. From this perspective, it is absolutely normal and even expected to pay people who bring the money in because, without them, there would be no finances.

I also view college athletes as professionals, and any professional deserves a salary for his or her work. Those who do great in sports should be rewarded for it with fixed payments. This way, college athletes would view sports as a responsible duty, which requires their professionalism and great work, but which would also be rewarded.

Client's Review

" I ordered a cheap essay on this website. Guys, I was so surprised the essay was written better than I thought it'd be. "

Sara J. reviewed EliteWritings on August 15, 2018, via SiteJabber Click to see the original review on an external website.

Example of Conclusion to Essay on Should College Athletes Be Paid

Hence, I can say that I strongly support paying college athletes. It is difficult to imagine any modern college without athletes who are both entertaining the public, as well as are examples of how a person can control and train one’s body. I find college sports to be an irreplaceable part of college life, and college athletes are the ones who keep this part functioning. Thus, they have to receive financial incentives for that. Being a great sportsperson is a difficult task, which has to be rewarded, and it would also be very motivating for many athletes who are having a hard time combining physical training, college education, and a part-time job. Hence, it would simplify lives for athletes greatly, as well as contribute to better results shown by them.

Example of Annotated Bibliography to Essay on Should College Athletes Be Paid

• Source 1: Leavitt, P., (2014). Mesa’s Hokam Stadium ready for Oaklanda’s Arizona Publication

This publication gives detailed information on the importance of morale for college athletes who prepare themselves to become professional athletes and for the prospect of athletics. It relates directly to my research topic since the research topic on whether or not college athletes should be paid. It is important to consider that payment is a part of morale.

• Source 2: Fitzpatrick, F., (2011). Demographics may doom the Philadelphia Athletics Historical Society Philadelphia Media Network (The Philadelphia Inquirer)

The article focuses on young athletes in Philadelphia and how happiness correlates with their athletics performance. The author implies that for a young person to advance, he or she needs to have motivation. Money paid to athletes could be one such motivator. He further illustrates that eliminating pay for college athletes may ruin the historical record of athletics in Philadelphia.

• Source 3: Eddie, C., (2015). Introduction to Intercollege Athletics Johns Hopkins University Press

This book addresses how rising income affects participation in athletics and sports as a career. It discusses the concept of complete value that predicts that extra income will increase long-term happiness. It is useful for this paper since it explains the shortcomings that can be brought by the elimination of payment in college athletes.

• Source 4: Difley, C., (2007). Tailteann Games Plays in History going for a Song The Irish Independent

The article concerns itself with the challenges facing the world of athletes after many sponsors, as well as institutions, eliminate the payment for college athletes. Although it is more detailed on the disadvantages of eliminating college athletes’ students, it is important since it sheds light on the other side of the story.

• Source 5: Gareth, A., (2013). London Marathon 2013 The Guardian

The author focuses on the participation of young people in the 2013 London marathon. He acknowledges that the number of young people who are participating in international athletic events is falling every year. The question of whether college athletes should be paid has demoralized many young people who want to concentrate on the other ways that can guarantee them a better future. Therefore, it addresses the importance of paying college athletes with the main idea of having a better future for athletics.

• Source 6: Geoff, G., (2007). Should College Students be paid? Green Haven Pres s

This is one of the most informative papers. It addresses the issue directly since it focuses on the research question providing guidelines of the advantages and the benefits that student-athletes enjoy.

• Source 7: Ronald, A., (2010). Pay for Play University of Illinois Press

Now I know that your writers are indeed experts because they know how to carry out research just like my teachers expect me to do. I am thankful to your writers and online agents who always reply to my concerns. Jessica

I used a couple of other services, who only spoiled my grades. EliteWritings.com was like a savior in my life and I gradually improved my reputation. Josh

English writing is definitely not my strongest point and I always make silly mistakes. I surfed the web and found your company. You sent me a good paper with impressive ideas. I really appreciate your help. Anthony

Your writers are really competent and hard working. I’ve purchased a difficult research project and to my surprise – I got excellent! Thanks! Addison

Wonderful writing service and friendly writers who always communicate with customers! I realized that your company can be trusted when you sent me good papers within short deadlines. James

My writer forgot about a part of requirements, but I requested revision and he adjusted the needed part. I got the revised paper shortly and the paper looked just like I was expecting. Lily

I was afraid to buy midterm coursework from you, but I did not know how to deal with my topic in computer sciences. I got 93% for the project and was ecstatic. I will surely use your services more. Logan

I’ve bought some essays from you and you guys are wonderful! Your writers sent me amazing essays! Mia

I did not know about your company and my friend recommended me to order essays from you. Your writer sent me my essays on time and I did not find any mistakes! Abigail

I always forget how to use different citation styles and formatting remains challenging for me. I found out that your company offers cheap formatting services and I sent you the paper. Since that time, my teacher never deducts points for formatting mistakes. Alexander

I am a horrible writer and I would rather pass several tests than work on essays. I found your service and you guys are great! You offered me good discounts and I am pleased to get affordable papers. Cooperation with you is worth it. Zoe

Quick and good service! Olivia

I am so bad in writing that I thought I would fail every class. One of my friends told me to use your services and I could not believe my eyes. Your writers managed to improve my academic records very fast! Thank you. Samantha

I am so lucky! Your essays improved my reputation. Taylor

It is an article based on research conducted in a university by a professor intending to understand the impact of making arrangements for paying college athletes. The author concludes that a play is an appreciation of the hard work that college athletes do during training and for setting aside their free time in order to excel in the athletics career. Therefore, it implies that paying college athletes has an advantage in that it will attract many talented young people to join colleges and earn other social advantages.

• Source 8: Charles, T., (2011). Big Time Sports in American Universities Cambridge University Press

Sporting is one of the co-curriculum activities that help in the development of education. Charles argues that people should stop considering the sporting activity as only a co-curriculum activity that benefits students for preparing them for education. He proposes that it should be seen as a new path of life or a profession. Therefore, college athletes should be paid to encourage them to carry on with their dreams and become professional athletes who can become great Americans and make a living out of the athletics. He analyzes that the benefits of offering payment to college athletes are that they will be motivated and other potential athletes will be attracted to make utilize their talents.

• Source 9: Daniel, C., (2010). Managing Intercollege Athletics Holcomb Hathaway Publishers

Daniel illustrates that colleges serve as the best place where individuals can grow their talents or discover them. In his book, he argues that a failure to recognize a talent when a person is in college would mean ruining the life of an individual since most of the people can only excel in the areas that they are talented. Therefore, he advocates that college athletes should be paid as a way of encouraging all young people to bring out their talents and make use of them. In his article, he outlines that the world athletes are the best-paid individuals worldwide. He then calls for a necessity to pay college students who participate as athletes as a way of introducing them to a new way of life that can serve as an effective career. Among the benefits outlined in his book, he includes offering an opportunity to those athletes who come from a poor background and rely on sponsorships for education. He states that most of the talented athletes are from poor families and they can change their lifestyle if they can earn from their talents during college life.

• Source 10: Bernard, M., et al., (2014). Sports Marketing Human Kinetic Publisher

Bernard is one of the great researchers in marketing and sporting activities. He has conducted many studies on different topics related to sports. In the article, he illustrates that sports are among the most liked activities worldwide. Therefore, it is a field that has numerous advantages for talented individuals. Many products are promoted by athletes to achieve effective sales promotion. In relation to that, he feels that college athletes should be paid. It will attract many young people who have talents not only to become professional athletes but also to avoid dangerous practices such as drug abuse. He argues that athletics in colleges keep students busy, physically fit and refreshed. Therefore, those who actively participate in athletics while should be given a reward.

• Source 11: Howard, L., (2014). The Athletic Trap: How College Sports Corrupted the Academy Johns Hopkins University Press

Howard is a lecturer who has worked in many international universities. He wrote his article on the basis of his experience. He calls sports a poison for education. It is an important source for the research since it offers a wide variety of opinions considering that his view is that college athletes should not be paid. The source is useful for the research because it not only falls directly under the topic, but it also contradicts the other sources. It will make the paper unbiased because it presents the other side of the argument.

• Source12: John, U., (2013). Four & Long: The Fight for Soul of College Football Simon & Schuster publisher

The author of this paper agrees that world footballers are one of the best-paid individuals in the world. However, he argues that such talents must grow from a young age. To turn the dreams of college students to reality, students-athletes should be paid a little to enable them to afford the facilities they require for their exercise.

More About Persuasive Essay Writing

• What is the purpose of a persuasive essay ?
• How to write a persuasive essay ?
• What persuasive essay topics were good in 2016 ?
• How to choose good persuasive essay topics in 2020 ?

Free Persuasive Essay Examples from Elite Essay Writers

Argumentative, book report, environment, evidence-based practice, informative, please notice.

Some text in the modal.

• Gregg Doyel
• Boilermakers
• Motor Sports
• Fighting Irish
• High Schools
• SportsbookWire

U.S. appeals court ruling leaves open possibility of college athletes being considered employees

A federal appeals court on Thursday refused to rule out the possibility of college athletes being considered employees of their schools under minimum-wage law, as the NCAA had requested, but a three-judge panel sent the case back to a lower court for further consideration of the issue.

In an opinion that comes nearly a year and a half after the case was argued before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge L. Felipe Restrepo wrote:

"The issue raised by this interlocutory appeal is not whether the athletes before us are actually owed the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), but rather, whether college athletes, by nature of their so-called amateur status, are precluded from ever bringing an FLSA claim. Our answer to this question is no."

But Restrepo added that the matter needs to return to a district court, which must re-consider the issue "for application of an economic realities analysis grounded in common-law agency principles."

Using verbiage from prior legal cases, the ruling set up a new test of sorts for determining whether the minimum-wage law applies to college athletes. It said the athletes "may be employees under the FLSA" when they perform services for another party, "necessarily and primarily for the [other party's] benefit," under that party's control or right of control and in return for "express" or "implied" compensation or "in-kind benefits."

"Ultimately," Restrepo wrote, "the touchstone remains whether the cumulative circumstances of the relationship between the athlete and college or NCAA reveal an economic reality that is that of an employee-employer."

Based on Thursday's ruling, it will be up to U.S. District Judge John R. Padova to make this determination.

The appellate panel's ruling was unanimous, with Judge Theodore A. McKee joining Restrepo without further comment and David J. Porter writing a concurring opinion in which he said the panel should not have accepted the matter for consideration.

In one part of the ruling Restrepo noted: "We have opted against using a term both parties employ liberally in briefing: 'student-athlete.' … As scholars have noted, the term is an NCAA marketing invention … [c]ontext makes this vividly apparent."

In August 2021, Padova rejected the NCAA’s and schools’ bid for dismissal, writing that that athletes’ complaint “plausibly alleges” that they are employees. That is a relatively low legal standard based on viewing the complaint in a way that is most favorable to the plaintiffs. And his ruling did nothing more than set the stage for the case to proceed to the evidence-gathering phase known as discovery.

The NCAA sought to appeal Padova’s refusal to dismiss the case, although such appeals generally are not allowed. But in this instance, in December 2021, Padova permitted the appeal. He acknowledged that his decision to not dismiss the case differed from the prior rulings that the NCAA and cited and that if the the 3rd Circuit appellate panel disagreed with him, the case would have to be dismissed.

Paul McDonald, a lawyer for the athlete plaintiffs in the case, said Thursday's ruling "confirms what we've been arguing — that college athletes can be both students and employees. Because students are employees in work-study programs and athletes meet the same criteria, we're confident they will be found to be employees like other students."

NCAA spokesperson Meghan Durham Wright said in a statement that read, in part: "The NCAA is expanding core guaranteed benefits for student-athletes to include health insurance, scholarships, academic counselling, mental health support, and career preparation. The Association is also advancing a proposal to allow schools to deliver far greater direct financial benefits to student-athletes.

"In modernizing college sports, student-athlete leadership from all three divisions agree that college athletes should not be forced into an employment model, which they expect will harm their experiences and needlessly cost countless student-athletes opportunities in women’s sports, Olympic sports, and sports at the HBCU and Division II and Division III levels. We look forward to working with all stakeholders — including Congress — to continue to promote needed changes in the best interest of all student-athletes.”

Gabe Feldman, director of the Tulane Sports Law Program and Tulane University's associate provost for NCAA compliance, said: "Broadly speaking, this is another dent in the amateurism armor of the NCAA. The NCAA has been under attack in other areas of the law. This is a sign that employment cases are just getting started."

The ruling comes amid a variety of issues the NCAA is facing with regard to athletes’ labor status, even as it reached a proposed multi-billion-dollar settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences .

In February, a National Labor Relations Board regional director ordered a union election for Dartmouth College men’s basketball players, writing that “because Dartmouth has the right to control the work performed by” the players and “because the players perform that work in exchange for compensation,” they are school employees under the National Labor Relations Act.

A month later, the Dartmouth players voted to unionize , although the school is pursuing an full NLRB review of the case and could pursue the matter in court.

In addition, the NLRB's Los Angeles office issued a complaint against the NCAA, the Pac-12 Conference and the University of Southern California , alleging they have unlawfully misclassified college athletes as “student-athletes” rather than employees. That case is pending with an administrative law judge.

These types of developments have captured the attention of Congress. Last month, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce approved a bill that would prevent college athletes from being considered employees of a school, conference or governing organization like the NCAA. The 23-16 vote approving the Republican-backed measure offered by Bob Good, R-Va., was along straight party lines. It now can be brought to the House floor.

Other members of Congress have filed several bills pertaining to college sports and circulated discussion drafts of several more. Much of this activity centers around athletes’ activities to make money from their name, image and likeness. Among the drafts is one from Ted Cruz, R-Tex., the ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, whose proposal also includes a provision that says college athletes shall not be considered an employee of an institution, conference or collegiate athletic association.

Thursday's ruling was in a case originally was filed in 2019 on behalf of Ralph “Trey” Johnson, a former Villanova football player.

In an amended form, its basic allegation is that players in major-college sports programs are “engaged in athletic work that is unrelated to academics; supervised by full-time, well-paid coaching and training staff; and integral to the billion dollar Big Business of NCAA sports.”

As such, the athletes argue that they are “student employees as much as, and arguably more than, fellow students employed in Work Study programs,” meaning that federal and state labor laws entitled them to be paid at least the minimum wage for the time they spend on sports.

Citing prior rulings in similar cases by the 7 th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and a federal district court in California, the NCAA countered that athletes cannot be school employees because they are amateurs and they participate in sports without any expectation of payment. It also argued that the U.S. Department of Labor has determined that students’ participation in extracurricular activities, including varsity sports, does not create an employment relationship.

In addition, the NCAA said that even if those two arguments failed, there is a seven-factor legal test that could be used to determine whether college athletes are employees – and three of the seven factors “point decisively toward finding there is no employment relationship, and the rest are at the very least neutral.”

Overall, the NCAA and the schools said: “While student-athletes exert themselves mentally and physically, they do so for their own reasons, and their own benefit. And their schools—which are in the business of education, scholarship, and service — offer athletics as a part of their educational mission, not as an end in itself.”

In Thursday's ruling, Restrepo disagreed and, in doing so, suggested that athletes in sports that generate huge amounts of revenue may have a different relationship with their schools than athletes in other sports do.

"In sum," he wrote, "for the purposes of the FLSA, we will not use a 'frayed tradition' of amateurism … to define the economic reality of athletes’ relationships to their schools." This "highlights the need for an economic realities framework that distinguishes college athletes who 'play' their sports for predominantly recreational or noncommercial reasons from those whose play crosses the legal line into work protected by the FLSA."

RFK Jr. Was My Drug Dealer

Kennedy’s endorsement of Donald Trump raises an awkward question.

he leading third-party candidate for president—an environmental lawyer and activist, a son and nephew of legendary liberal Democratic politicians—just quit the race and announced that he is joining the campaign of the most anti-environment president and presidential nominee in recent history, the leader of a Republican Party he has turned into a right-wing, anti-democratic, protofascist personality cult.

I could go on and on and on, cataloging the contradictions and abandonment of principle, all gobsmacking.

But Donald Trump and Bobby Kennedy—as I’ve referred to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. since we met freshman year at Harvard—have always had many features in common as well. Both are entitled playboy sons of northeastern wealth; both (in Michelle Obama’s words) were “afforded the grace of failing forward” as misbehaving, underachieving adolescents admitted to Ivy League colleges thanks to “the affirmative action of generational wealth”; both were reckless lifelong adolescents, both attention-craving philanderers and liars, both jerks. And Kennedy’s hour-long speech today was nearly as meandering and filled with lies as any average hour of Trump.

On the subject of reckless-adolescent entitlement, I’ve got one Bobby Kennedy anecdote to tell. But it’s actually relevant to his endorsement of Donald Trump for president and his apparent expectation of joining a second Trump administration.

In Kennedy’s speech today, he spoke at length about federal pharmaceutical regulation and programs addressing chronic disease. “I’m going to change that,” he said, promising to “staff” the health agencies very differently. “Within four years, America will be a healthy country … if President Trump is elected and honors his word.” Trump, he added, “has told me that he wants this to be his legacy.”

My Bobby Kennedy story involves pharmaceuticals—not the legal, lifesaving kind, such as the vaccines he’s made a career of lying about, but the recreational kind.

John Hendrickson: The first MAGA Democrat

As a candidate, Kennedy got a very sympathetic pass on his years of drug use because he’s an addict, having used heroin from ages 15 to 29. He quit when he was arrested after overdosing on a flight from Minneapolis to the Black Hills and found by police in South Dakota to be carrying heroin; he pleaded guilty and received only probation. Kennedy, as Joe Hagan wrote in a recent Vanity Fair profile, “has made his history of addiction part of his campaign narrative.” As a teenager in Nebraska, I’d smoked cannabis and dropped acid before I got to Harvard in 1972. Sometime during my freshman year, I tried cocaine, enjoyed it, and later decided to procure a gram for myself. A friend told me about a kid in our class who was selling coke.

The dealer was Bobby Kennedy. I’d never met him. I got in touch; he said sure, come over to his room in Hurlbut, his dorm, where I’d never been, a five-minute walk. His roommate, whom I knew, was the future journalist Peter Kaplan—with whom I, like Kennedy, remained friends for the rest of his life. He left as I arrived. I wondered whether he always did that when Bobby had customers.

“Hi. Bobby,” Kennedy introduced himself. Another kid, tall, lanky, and handsome, was in the room. “This is my brother Joe.” That is, Joseph P. Kennedy II, two years older, the future six-term Massachusetts congressman.

Bobby Kennedy wasn’t famous, but he was the most famous person I’d ever met.

He poured out a line for me to sample, and handed me an inch-and-a-half length of plastic drinking straw. I snorted. We chatted for a minute. I paid him, I believe, $40 in cash. It was a lot of money, the equivalent of $300 today. But cocaine bought from a Kennedy accompanied by a Kennedy brother —the moment of glamour seemed worth it.

Back in my dorm room 10 minutes later, I got a phone call.

“Hello?” “It’s Bobby.” “Hi.” “You took my straw !” I realized that I had indeed, and had thought nothing of it. Because … it was a crummy piece of plastic straw. But Bobby was pissed. “There are crystals inside it, man, growing . You took it.” Growing ? The residue of powdered cocaine mixed with mucus formed crystals over time? What did I know. It reminded me of some science-fair project. “So … you want the straw back?” “ Yeah , man.” I walked it back to his room. He didn’t smile or say thanks. It was the last time I ever bought coke from anyone.

A famous rich boy selling a hard drug that could’ve gotten him—or, more precisely, someone who wasn’t him —a years-long prison sentence. His almost fetishistic obsession with a bit of plastic trash. His greedy little burst of anger cloaked in righteousness. His faith that he was cultivating precious cocaine crystals. In retrospect, it has seemed to me a tiny illustration of the child as the father of the man he became: fantastical pseudoscientific crusader, middle-aged preppy dick who takes selfies with barbecued dogs and plays pranks with roadkill bear cubs he didn’t have time to eat.

But the reason I decided finally to share this anecdote is because of a criminal-justice policy advocated by the presidential candidate he’s just endorsed. It’s another of those many spectacular contradictions I mentioned earlier.

That is, Donald Trump, if he becomes president as Kennedy is now working to make happen, wants to start executing drug dealers. He said so in a speech as president in 2018: “These are terrible people, and we have to get tough on those people, because … if we don’t get tough on the drug dealers, we’re wasting our time … And that toughness includes the death penalty … We’re gonna solve this problem … We’re gonna solve it with toughness … That’s what they most fear."

He said it again in 2022 when he announced his current candidacy: “We’re going to be asking [Congress to pass a law that] everyone who sells drugs, gets caught selling drugs, [is] to receive the death penalty for their heinous acts.”

Elizabeth Bruenig: Trump dreams of a swifter death penalty

And at a campaign rally this past April, he elaborated at length on his plan to kill drug dealers: “The only thing they understand is strength. They understand strength—and it’ll all stop.” Our policy, he explained, should be like that in the country he otherwise demonizes the most. “When I met with President Xi of China, I said, ‘Do you have a drug problem?’ ‘No no no,’ [he said,] ‘we have no drug problem.’ [I said,] ‘Why is that?’ ‘Quick trial!’ I said, ‘Tell me about a quick trial.’ When they catch the seller of drugs, the purveyor of drugs, the drug dealers, they immediately give them a trial. It takes one day. One day. At the end of that day, if they’re guilty, which they always are … within one day, that person is executed. They execute the drug dealers. They have zero drug problem. Zero.”

And so, one question for reporters to ask the new Trump campaigner and potential Trump-administration official Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is something like this: The candidate you’re campaigning for, in whose administration you apparently intend to serve, wants our laws rewritten so that drug dealers, particularly those who sell narcotics, face capital punishment. Given that you sold cocaine in your youth, how do you feel about his advocacy of a regime that might have resulted in your own execution at age 19?

Editor’s Note: The Kennedy campaign did not reply to requests for comment on this story.

About the Author

More Stories

Bill Ackman Is a Brilliant Fictional Character

The Anti-vaccine Right Brought Human Sacrifice to America

• 2024 Elections

A Full Transcript of Barack Obama’s Speech at the 2024 Democratic National Convention

B arack Obama was the keynote speaker of the second night of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, where the 63-year-old former President tapped into his renowned oratory skills to honor his former vice president President Joe Biden, warn the party against complacency, and rally support for Kamala Harris against Donald Trump.

Read More: ‘Yes, She Can’: A Breakdown of Barack Obama’s 2024 DNC Speech in Support of Kamala Harris

The following transcript was prepared and provided to TIME by Rev , using AI-powered software, and it was reviewed and edited for accuracy by TIME staff.

Chicago—it’s good to be home. It is good to be home. And I don’t know about you, but I’m feeling fired up. I am feeling ready to go even if I am the only person stupid enough to speak after Michelle Obama. 

Read More: ‘Hope Is Making a Comeback’: The Key Moments From Michelle Obama’s 2024 DNC Speech

I am feeling hopeful because this convention has always been pretty good to kids with funny names who believe in a country where anything is possible; because we have a chance to elect someone who has spent her entire life trying to give people the same chances America gave her, someone who sees you and hears you and will get up every single day and fight for you, the next President of the United States of America, Kamala Harris. 

It’s been 16 years since I had the honor of accepting this party’s nomination for President. And I know that’s hard to believe, because I have not aged a bit. But it’s true. And looking back, I can say, without question, that my first big decision as your nominee turned out to be one of my best. And that was asking Joe Biden to serve by my side as Vice President.

Other than some common Irish blood, Joe and I come from different backgrounds. But we became brothers. And as we worked together for eight—sometimes pretty tough—years, what I came to admire most about Joe wasn’t just his smarts, his experience; it was his empathy and his decency and his hard earned resilience, his unshakeable belief that everyone in this country deserves a fair shot. And over the last four years, those are the values America has needed most.

At a time when millions of our fellow citizens were sick and dying, we needed a leader with the character to put politics aside and do what was right. At a time when our economy was reeling, we needed a leader with the determination to drive what would become the world’s strongest recovery: 15 million jobs, higher wages, lower healthcare costs. At a time when the other party had turned into a cult of personality, we needed a leader who was steady and brought people together, and was selfless enough to do the rarest thing there is in politics: putting his own ambition aside for the sake of the country. 

History will remember Joe Biden as an outstanding President who defended democracy at a moment of great danger. And I am proud to call him my President, but I am even prouder to call him my friend.

( Crowd chants: “Thank you, Joe!” )

Now, the torch has been passed. Now, it is up to all of us to fight for the America we believe in. And make no mistake, it will be a fight. For all the incredible energy we’ve been able to generate over the last few weeks, for all the rallies and the memes, this will still be a tight race in a closely divided country. A country where too many Americans are still struggling, where a lot of Americans don’t believe government can help. And as we gather here tonight, the people who will decide this election are asking a very simple question: Who will fight for me? Who’s thinking about my future, about my children’s future, about our future together? 

One thing is for certain: Donald Trump is not losing sleep over that question. Here’s a 78-year-old billionaire who has not stopped whining about his problems since he rode down his golden escalator nine years ago. It has been a constant stream of gripes and grievances that’s actually been getting worse now that he is afraid of losing to Kamala. There’s the childish nicknames, the crazy conspiracy theories, this weird obsession with crowd sizes.

President Obama: It’s been a constant stream of gripes and grievances that’s actually gotten worse now that Trump is afraid of losing to Kamala. The childish nicknames and crazy conspiracy theories and weird obsession with crowd sizes 🤏 pic.twitter.com/cstJYrpiCg — Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) August 21, 2024

It just goes on and on and on. The other day, I heard someone compare Trump to the neighbor who keeps running his leaf blower outside your window every minute of every day. Now, from a neighbor, that’s exhausting. From a President, it’s just dangerous. 

The truth is, Donald Trump sees power as nothing more than a means to his ends. He wants the middle class to pay the price for another huge tax cut that would mostly help him and his rich friends. He killed a bipartisan immigration deal written in part by one of the most conservative Republicans in Congress that would’ve helped secure our southern border, because he thought trying to actually solve the problem would hurt his campaign. He doesn’t—

( Crowd boos. ) Do not boo. Vote. 

He doesn’t seem to care if more women lose their reproductive freedom, since it won’t affect his life. And most of all, Donald Trump wants us to think that this country is hopelessly divided: between us and them, between the real Americans who—of course—support him and the outsiders who don’t. And he wants you to think that you’ll be richer and safer if you will just give him the power to put those other people back in their place. It is one of the oldest tricks in politics, from a guy whose act has—let’s face it—gotten pretty stale.

We do not need four more years of bluster and bumbling and chaos. We have seen that movie before, and we all know that the sequel is usually worse. 

America’s ready for a new chapter. America’s ready for a better story. We are ready for a President Kamala Harris. 

And Kamala Harris is ready for the job. This is a person who has spent her life fighting on behalf of people who need a voice and a champion. As you heard from Michelle, Kamala was not born into privilege. She had to work for what she’s got. And she actually cares about what other people are going through. She’s not the neighbor running the leaf blower. She’s the neighbor rushing over to help when you need a hand. 

As a prosecutor, Kamala stood up for children who had been victims of sexual abuse. As an Attorney General of the most populous state in the country, she fought big banks and for-profit colleges, securing billions of dollars for the people they had scammed. After the whole mortgage crisis, she pushed me and my Administration hard to make sure homeowners got a fair settlement. It didn’t matter that I was a Democrat, didn’t matter that she had knocked on doors for my campaign in Iowa—she was going to fight to get as much relief as possible for the families who deserved it.

As Vice President, she helped take on the drug companies to cap the cost of insulin, lower the cost of healthcare, give families with kids a tax cut. And she is running for President with real plans to lower costs even more and protect Medicare and Medicaid and sign a law to guarantee every woman’s right to make her own healthcare decisions. 

In other words, Kamala Harris won’t be focused on her problems, she’ll be focused on yours. As President, she won’t just cater to her own supporters and punish those who refuse to kiss the ring or bend the knee. She’ll work on behalf of every American. That’s who Kamala is. 

And in the White House, she will have an outstanding partner in Governor Tim Walz. Let me tell you something. Let me tell you something. I love this guy. Tim is the kind of person who should be in politics: born in a small town, served his country, taught kids, coached football, took care of his neighbors. He knows who he is, and he knows what’s important. You can tell those flannel shirts he wears don’t come from some political consultant; they come from his closet, and they have been through some stuff. They have been through some stuff. That’s right. 

Together, Kamala and Tim have kept faith with America’s central story: a story that says, “We are all created equal.” All of us endowed with certain inalienable rights. That everyone deserves a chance. That even when we don’t agree with each other, we can find a way to live with each other. That’s Kamala’s vision. That’s Tim’s vision. That’s the Democratic Party’s vision. And our job over the next 11 weeks is to convince as many people as possible to vote for that vision. 

Now, it won’t be easy. The other side knows it’s easier to play on people’s fears and cynicism. It always has been. They will tell you that government is inherently corrupt, that sacrifice and generosity are for suckers, and since the game is rigged it’s okay to take what you want and just look after your own. That’s the easy path. 

We have a different task. Our job is to convince people that democracy can actually deliver. And, and in doing that, we can’t just point to what we’ve already accomplished. We can’t just rely on the ideas of the past. We need to chart a new way forward to meet the challenges of today. And Kamala understands this. She knows, for example, that if we want to make it easier for more young people to buy a home, we need to build more units and clear away some of the outdated laws and regulations that made it harder to build homes for working people in this country. That is a priority. And she’s put out a bold new plan to do just that.

On healthcare, we should all be proud of the enormous progress that we’ve made through the Affordable Care Act, providing millions of people access to affordable coverage, protecting millions more from unscrupulous insurance practices. And I’d noticed, by the way, that since it’s become popular, they don’t call it Obamacare no more.

But Kamala knows we can’t stop there, which is why she’ll keep working to limit out-of-pocket costs. Kamala knows that if we want to help people get ahead, we need to put a college degree within reach of more Americans. But she also knows college shouldn’t be the only ticket to the middle class. We need to follow the lead of governors like Tim Walz, who said, if you’ve got the skills and the drive, you shouldn’t need a degree to work for state government. 

And in this new economy, we need a President who actually cares about the millions of people all across this country, who wake up every single day to do the essential, often thankless work: to care for our sick, to clean our streets, to deliver our packages. We need a President who will stand up for their right to bargain for better wages and working conditions. And Kamala will be that President. 

Yes, she can. 

( Crowd chants: “Yes, she can!” ) Yes, she can. 

A Harris-Walz administration can help us move past some of the tired, old debates that keep stifling progress. Because at their core, Kamala and Tim understand that when everybody gets a fair shot, we are all better off. They understand that when every child gets a good education, the whole economy gets stronger. When women are paid the same as men for doing the same job, all families benefit. They understand that we can secure our borders without tearing kids away from their parents. Just like we can keep our streets safe while also building trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve and eliminating bias that will make it better for everybody. 

Donald Trump and his well-heeled donors, they don’t see the world that way. For them, one group’s gains is necessarily another group’s loss. For them, freedom means that the powerful can do pretty much what they please, whether it’s fire workers trying to organize a union or put poison in our rivers or avoid paying taxes like everybody else has to do. 

Well, we have a broader idea of freedom. We believe in the freedom to provide for your family if you’re willing to work hard. The freedom to breathe clean air and drink clean water and send your kids to school without worrying if they’ll come home. We believe that true freedom gives each of us the right to make decisions about our own life, how we worship, what our family looks like, how many kids we have, who we marry. And we believe that freedom requires us to recognize that other people have the freedom to make choices that are different than ours. That’s okay. 

That’s the America Kamala Harris and Tim Walz believe in: an America where “we, the people” includes everyone. Because that’s the only way this American experiment works. And despite what our politics might suggest, I think most Americans understand that. Democracy isn’t just a bunch of abstract principles and dusty laws in some book somewhere. It’s the values we live by. It’s the way we treat each other, including those who don’t look like us or pray like us or see the world exactly like we do. 

That sense of mutual respect has to be part of our message. Our politics have become so polarized these days that all of us across the political spectrum seem so quick to assume the worst in others unless they agree with us on every single issue. We start thinking that the only way to win is to scold and shame and out-yell the other side. And after a while, regular folks just tune out, or they don’t bother to vote. 

Now that approach may work for the politicians who just want attention and thrive on division, but it won’t work for us. To make progress on the things we care about, the things that really affect people’s lives, we need to remember that we’ve all got our blind spots and contradictions and prejudices. And that if we want to win over those who aren’t yet ready to support our candidates, we need to listen to their concerns and maybe learn something in the process. 

After all, if a parent or grandparent occasionally says something that makes us cringe, we don’t automatically assume they’re bad people. We recognize that the world is moving fast, that they need time and maybe a little encouragement to catch up. Our fellow citizens deserve the same grace we hope they’ll extend to us. That’s how we can build a true Democratic majority, one that can get things done.

And by the way, that does not just matter to the people in this country. The rest of the world is watching to see if we can actually pull this off. No nation, no society has ever tried to build a democracy as big and as diverse as ours before. One that includes people that, over decades, have come from every corner of the globe. One where our allegiances and our community are defined not by race or blood but by a common creed. And that’s why when we uphold our values, the world’s a little brighter. When we don’t, the world’s a little dimmer—and dictators and autocrats feel emboldened, and over time, we become less safe. 

We shouldn’t be the world's policeman and we can’t eradicate every cruelty and injustice in the world. But America can be and must be a force for good: discouraging conflict, fighting disease, promoting human rights, protecting the planet from climate change, defending freedom, brokering peace. That’s what Kamala Harris believes and so do most Americans. 

( Crowd chants: “Yes, we can!” )

I know these ideas can feel pretty naive right now. We live in a time of such confusion and rancor, with a culture that puts a premium on things that don’t last: money, fame, status, likes. We chase the approval of strangers on our phones. We build all manner of walls and fences around ourselves, and then we wonder why we feel so alone. We don’t trust each other as much because we don’t take the time to know each other. And in that space between us, politicians and algorithms teach us to caricature each other and troll each other and fear each other. 

But here’s the good news, Chicago: All across America, in big cities and small towns, away from all the noise, the ties that bind us together are still there. We still coach Little League and look out for our elderly neighbors. We still feed the hungry in churches and mosques and synagogues and temples. We share the same pride when our Olympic athletes compete for the gold. Because the vast majority of us do not want to live in a country that’s bitter and divided. We want something better. We want to be better. And the joy and the excitement that we’re seeing around this campaign tells us we’re not alone. 

You know, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this these past few months because, as Michelle mentioned, this summer we lost her mom, Ms. Marian Robinson. And I don’t know that anybody has ever loved their mother-in-law any more than I love mine. Mostly it’s because she was funny and wise and the least pretentious person I knew. That and she always defended me with Michelle when I messed up. ( Crowd laughs. ) I’d hide behind her. 

But I also think one of the reasons Marian and I became so close was she reminded me of my grandmother, the woman who helped raise me as a child. And on the surface, the two of them did not have a lot in common. One was a Black woman from right here, south side of Chicago, right down the way—( Crowd cheers. )—went to Englewood High School. The other was a little old white lady born in a tiny town called Peru, Kansas. ( Crowd cheers. ) Now I know there aren’t that many people from Peru. ( Crowd laughs. )

And yet they shared a basic outlook on life. They were strong, smart, resourceful women, full of common sense, who, regardless of the barriers they encountered—and women growing up in the ’40s and ’50s and ’60s, they encountered barriers—they still went about their business without fuss or complaint and provided an unshakeable foundation of love for their children and their grandchildren. In that sense, they both represented an entire generation of working people, who through war and depression, discrimination, and limited opportunity, helped build this country. A lot of them toiled every day at jobs that were often too small for them and didn’t pay a lot. They willingly went without just to keep a roof over their family’s heads, just to give their children something better. 

But they knew what was true. They knew what mattered: things like honesty and integrity, kindness, and hard work. They weren’t impressed with braggarts or bullies. They didn’t think putting other people down lifted you up or made you strong. They didn’t spend a lot of time obsessing about what they didn’t have. Instead, they appreciated what they did. They found pleasure in simple things: a card game with friends, a good meal and laughter around the kitchen table, helping others, and, most of all, seeing their children do things and go places that they would’ve never imagined for themselves. 

Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or somewhere in between, we have all had people like that in our lives. People like Kamala’s parents, who crossed oceans because they believed in the promise of America. People like Tim’s parents, who taught him about the importance of service. Good, hardworking people, who weren’t famous or powerful but who managed in countless ways to leave this country just a little bit better than they found it.

As much as any policy or program, I believe that’s what we yearn for: a return to an America where we work together and look out for each other. A restoration of, what Lincoln called on the eve of civil war, our “bonds of affection.” An America that taps what he called “the better angels of our nature.” 

That is what this election is about. And I believe that’s why, if we each do our part over the next 77 days, if we knock on doors, if we make phone calls, if we talk to our friends, if we listen to our neighbors, if we work like we’ve never worked before, if we hold firm to our convictions, we will elect Kamala Harris as the next President of the United States and Tim Walz as the next Vice President of the United States. We will elect leaders up and down the ballot who will fight for the hopeful, forward-looking America we all believe in. And together, we too will build a country that is more secure and more just, more equal, and more free. So let’s get to work. 

God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

More Must-Reads from TIME

• Breaking Down the 2024 Election Calendar
• Heman Bekele Is TIME’s 2024 Kid of the Year
• The Reintroduction of Kamala Harris
• What a $129 Frying Pan Says About America’s Eating Habits
• A Battle Over Fertility Law in China
• The 1 Heart-Health Habit You Should Start When You’re Young
• Cuddling Might Help You Get Better Sleep
• The 50 Best Romance Novels to Read Right Now

Contact us at [email protected]