What if college athletes were paid

So while a few athletes would benefit financially, a greater number of students would see their athletic opportunities disappear. Exactly who gets paid and how much? The economics of a paid-athlete system is messy at best. At worst, it's chaotic and threatens team morale. Should all athletes be paid? That's not likely. How about only football and basketball players? What determines how much each player should earn?

Is the third-string left guard worth as much as the starting quarterback? Will the coach make these determinations? What if the coach's son plays on the team? Assuming a free-market system, the chasm between the haves and have-nots would widen even further. Universities best positioned to pay athletes top dollar would win bidding wars and recruiting battles against institutions with limited budgets. Athletic competition nationwide would suffer as a result. Might this exacerbate booster interference and create a black market for top talent funded surreptitiously?

Paying student-athletes turns them into professionals and sullies the purity of amateur athletic competition. Student-athletes are students first and foremost, attending college primarily to receive an education and secondarily to compete in their sport. College students should participate in sports for the love of the game, not for financial gain, following the long-forgotten credo held dear by Olympic athletes.

Title IX stipulates that colleges must provide equal opportunities for male and female athletes. Does this rule apply to payment structures, too, though? Would a university have to pay female athletes in aggregate the same amount as their male counterparts? Not necessarily — but a school would be required to ensure that female athletes receive proportionate opportunities for scholarships. This quandary offers no easy solution. The most likely and reasonable scenario entails allowing college athletes to benefit financially from endorsement deals, as California has proposed.

But to be fair and equitable, that law and any other would have to pertain nationally and be sanctioned by the NCAA, which is currently reconsidering its bylaws regarding the issue.

Even the U. Senate has jumped into the fray, establishing a subcommittee on "Protecting the Integrity of College Athletics. And now the Supreme Court has become involved.

In a unanimous decision issued on June 21, the Court ruled the NCAA cannot bar universities from making education-related payments to student-athletes. The case, NCAA vs. Alston et al — named for former West Virginia University football player Shawne Alston, one of several athletes who initiated the suit — centered on student-athletes from Division I men's and women's basketball and FBS football.

While the Court's decision doesn't necessarily permit colleges to pay athletes salaries, it does allow them to compensate students for "education-related benefits" including paid internships, study abroad programs, tutoring computers, equipment, and graduate scholarships.

The ruling continues the steady erosion of the NCAA's longstanding ban on paying student-athletes. Over the past two years, 19 states have passed laws rebuking the organization's rules.

As of July 1, student-athletes in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and New Mexico will be able to profit from their name, image, and likeness.

If a college sports program department or athletics association forfeits its tax-exempt status, it may have new, big expenses from which it was spared under the student aid model. Those could include state and local categories of taxes, such as property taxes. There are already cases whereby a local government has pressed a major state university to explain why a golf course or other real estate not used for educational purposes that the institution owned should qualify as an educational and charitable site.

With professional athletes on the payroll, such local and state scrutiny of land used for sports entertainment provided by hired professionals will increase. One possible strategy to reduce this potential tax exposure would be for athletic directors to decide to pay salaries only to student athletes for selected sports.

All other sports might be left in their current, familiar grant-in-aid category. The risk is that paying salaries to student athletes in a few high-profile sports will open the door to Title IX compliance problems, especially if comparable compensation is not given regardless of gender.

That measure will have disproportionate consequences for athletics programs where coach and athletic director salaries are high. The new tax legislation also places greater limits on tax deductions for donors who give to athletics programs and earn the right to purchase season tickets to games.

College sports programs will still enjoy great exemptions and benefits but will face increasing scrutiny and constraints. Expenses will continue to rise, but revenues will be subject to more taxes. Courts and Congress are increasingly, albeit reluctantly, acknowledging the commercial character of the NCAA and its sponsored sports. On June 4, in the case of Javon Marshall, et al. ESPN, et al. Of that there can be little doubt. If college players can be paid, how much will they be paid?

A more probable scenario is that the courts will designate the conference as the crucial collective unit that works with its member universities to set ceilings and floors on player salaries. Conferences such as the Ivy League will probably not participate in the added commercialization of paying salaries to athletes. The Power Five Conferences will be likely participants. Between those two extremes, for other Division I conferences, athletic directors will pay a heavy price if they opt to pay players.

After the euphoria of achieving partial gains in financial equity by allowing salaries for hardworking student athletes passes, the sobering reality is that even big-time college sports programs will be stretched in their budgets and conflicted in reconciling payment of student athletes with their educational mission. Expand comments Hide comments. View the discussion thread.

We have retired comments and introduced Letters to the Editor. Should student-athletes receive a portion of that since they earned it with their performance? On February 20, , Zion Williamson had one of his shoes explode on him while playing basketball.

The consensus best college athlete for the season and future 1 NBA draft pick suffered a sprained knee. If he were to step onto the court again, then he would be placing his future at risk while the college and the apparel company sponsoring the program stood to bring in millions of dollars of profit because of the exposure. There are several advantages and disadvantages to consider when looking at the idea of paying college athletes a stipend that goes beyond what they receive with their scholarship.

Paying athletes would eliminate the need for additional employment. It is not unusual for athletes to find a job outside of their sport and classroom schedule so that they have some spending money to use.

This process gives them an opportunity to earn one in the future, but paying them for their service would allow them to concentrate on their studies and athletics without as many distractions. It would offer a financial benefit to many families. Student-athletes receive thousands of dollars in support from their families as they pursue the college experience. Failing to abide by the NCAA rules, including the offer of an autograph for compensation, can make someone ineligible to play.

Unless there are grants, student loans, or scholarship funds available, the cost of going to school falls on the support system of the student unless they earn a chance to play professionally.

Paying students to play sports would offer another incentive. Most student-athletes will graduate with a degree and pursue a job in their chosen career field. Even those who do make it to a professional league will usually find work in their major after their athletics career is over. It is not unusual to see teens decide to retire from the game they love because their future earning potential comes from their education instead of their athletic ability.

This idea would help to reduce corruption in college athletics. The NCAA has an entire book of rules and guidelines for institutions and coaches to follow so that there is no corruption in the sport. Every year, there are still a handful of programs that go through an investigative process because of their recruitment behaviors.

Some schools already pay cash bonuses to ensure the best high school athletes are willing to come play on scholarship for them instead of at a rival school. Student-athletes could earn school credits for their performance. One of the unique benefits of a work-study program is that it can help students accumulate college credits that can supplement their work toward a specific major or minor.

You get to supplement your college tuition costs at the same time. Instead of offering a cash payment, athletes on a scholarship could have their funds go into an account where they can manage their on-campus expenses with less hassle. Then any amount in excess at the end of a semester could be withdrawn into an account.

This benefit would let student-athletes earn credits for the concepts and skills they learn while playing in their favorite sport just like a journalist would while working for the student newspaper.

It would lower the financial burden of tuition. Since all student-athletes would likely earn a paycheck for their activities, walk-ons could earn an opportunity to reduce the financial impact of their tuition, room, and board. That means the cost of going to college would go down if you were willing to take up a sport and make the team.

Students would gravitate toward the programs that offered them the most money or additional playing time, which means there could be a surge in facility upgrades throughout all of the NCAA divisions.

Critics suggest that only the schools with the most money would make the most progress with this advantage, but you see that element in all sectors of business.

The best and wealthiest institutions will always have the most influence.