In recent years, there have been ongoing discussions on the one big question: Should collegiate athletes be paid salaries?
We all know an amateur athlete that is extraordinary at what they do, and it would be hard to tell that specific person that they do not deserve to be paid for their contributions. In a perfect world, of course they should be paid, then we could pass money around for all amateurs getting a lot of attention for their talents.
As far as the NCAA goes, though, there are several reasons why it simply would not work. For one, the NCAA is a not-for-profit organization. They have been approached many times about ways to compensate and reasons why compensation is unattainable for the athletes, and I believe it is a big deal to the committee to figure it out, but giving salaries goes directly against their standard policy.
Also, the NCAA has done so much to accommodate athletes off the field or court. Whether it be mandatory tutors to help with academic success, mandatory off days (cannot meet seven consecutive days), or permission to use facilities later or earlier than anyone else, several policies are in place to ensure success of the student athlete’s well being.
All that being said, the fact that nearly all athletes have earned scholarships seems to be frequently looked over by those debating for compensation. Paying any stipends or salaries to the athletes outside of the scholarships would be unaffordable for universities, as sports are not the only extracurricular activities allowed at any college.
Paying athletes, I imagine, could result in the termination of so many other extracurricular activities that these schools offer. How do you explain this to the families of the students that selected their school, most likely locally, strictly for a specific activity? Now, you have a larger percentage of students on campus that are not involved in anything, which we all know is a disadvantage. Professionals are to be paid, and students are in school to pursue professional status.
Though their athletic talents and prowess have allowed them to pursue higher education majority of the time, college is a time for all the students to earn professional perks, not feel entitled to receive them upon their arrival to campus.
If you pay the last guy on the basketball team’s bench, do you then pay the president of the international business club that has been really successful? There is not a system to pay everyone evenly for their contributions without it causing confusion about the hierarchy of the athletes’ roles on their respective teams.
For example, football and basketball may garner the most attention for a school, but it’s not always the case. Some schools have terrible basketball and/or football programs and amazing swimming and lacrosse teams, so there will always be this fight over who should get what. What and who is more important?
Lastly, in my opinion, paying athletes makes collegiate sports even more corrupt than it already is. The bigger programs already have a big advantage, so with their being a fixed income already in place, lower level programs lose their best players to more wealthy schools that can pay them even more under the table. That aspect of the corrupt system will always stand, and people will never be satisfied and always want more.
A top-heavy system (in regards to talent), will show itself even greater if the athletes are paid.
As a former collegiate athlete, I do not want this to come off as some random guy online hating on the amateurs’ opportunity to be paid. I want everyone to think deeper into the problem and possible solutions, and understand that it is much bigger than the athletes involved. Most students are involved in something, and you should want to avoid this divide between athletes and “others”.
College is where we let our voices be heard, and the people you make feel like less will not take to that too well.
Dallas Haywood
Sports Reporter