Blogger Roundtable: Should College Athletes Be Paid?

Sorry, Reggie - no pay for you.

The Blogger Roundtable compiles the views of various ILRSMC bloggers and e-board members. If you have a suggestion for a future roundtable topic, email Geoff at gjr52@cornell.edu.

A timeless debate for sports fans, the simple notion that "student-athletes" should or should not be paid is enough to start a fiery debate. There's no question that some schools are the beneficiaries of what has become not just a game, but a business. If colleges are making money thanks to their football team's performance, why aren't the players compensated?

At the same time, many argue that these athletically-inclined young adults are called student-athletes. The emphasis should be on the student part of their title. Naysayers will also point out that most of the colleges who make big bucks from their athletic departments already DO give tremendous benefits (often times, a free or discounted education) to their players.

Admittedly, the debate is getting tiresome. But recently, there's been some gasoline thrown on into the flames.

Last Monday, Evan Weiner of the NewJerseyNewsRoom reported:

Apparently, according to a person in the know, college presidents, provosts and chancellors are thinking of giving “student-athletes” a $2,000 a year salary for their efforts. Athletic Directors seem to think $3,500 is a better stipend but for now the $2,000 figure seems to be right amount of money to spend on players for the Lords of the Ivy Towers.

Weiner goes on to give a very detailed look at the collegiate athletic landscape and whether or not athletes are entitled to some sort of "salary."

On a new installment on the ILRSMC Blog, we asked SMC bloggers:

Should student athletes be paid?

The opinions after the jump.

Here's what they had to say:

Adam Kirsch (ILR '15)

I do not believe that college athletes should be paid. DI players receive their diploma essentially for free and gain the benefit of numerous services that aren't necessarily accessible to the ordinary student.

Although they generate a great deal of revenue for the university, not every athlete contributes the same degree to the university (example-Cam Newton brought much more revenue to Auburn than Notre Dame's second-string punter brought to South Bend). There is no way to create a fair and reasonable system to proportionally compensate student-athletes beyond the scholarship system.

Furthermore, although DIII athletes do not receive scholarships, they do not bring a significant share of revenue back to the university compared to their DI counterparts.

Given the above reasons, I do not think that DI athletes should be paid. They have the option to leave early for the pros if they want to get paid-there's no reason they should be paid in college when they can make the jump and collect on a signing bonus.

Robbie Cohen (ILRSMC VP Events, ILR '13)

I believe that college athletes should not be paid. They are essentially being paid by receiving scholarships, as they don't have to pay the increasingly high costs of tuition.

Furthermore, they are STUDENT athletes - note that the word student comes first. While most have the end goal of being professional athletes, college is their time to learn as undergraduates - if and when they make it to the pros, that is when they should get paid.

NCAA athletes do bring in tremendous revenues to universities. But if these universities had to pay each and every one of their athletes, they may not be able to sustain their programs - unless they devoted more resources to sports, which would mean sacrificing the education that the university offers.

Going along with this, the competitive balance would be diminished as the bigger, richer universities would be able to just pay for the better players.

Johanna Gill (ILR '15)

College athletes definitely should not be paid. Ultimately, they are at an educational institution where, in theory, academics, not sports, should be the main focus. At the moment, there are already rampant issues with corruption in college sports; take for example the University of Miami. Officially allowing schools to compensate athletes may only exacerbate unethical practices and lead to an even more exaggerated divide in competition if schools with more resources are continuously able to attract the top athletes.

Also, many athletes are on athletic scholarships at their respective schools. Isn't that compensation enough? Especially now with the economic downturn and colleges being forced to cut academic programs, monetary compensation should only come into play in a professional league.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The bloggers seem to be pretty certain of their views, but there is at least one who takes exception. Check out his take in Alternate Perspective.