1. Why Paying College Athletes would be detrimental to the NCAA
Why Paying College Athletes Would be Detrimental to the NCAA
RSM 369 Moral & Ethics
Debate Paper
Dating back many years, people have always weighed in on the pros and cons attached to
compensating college athletes. Recently however, this argument has increasingly gained steam
due to increased revenues and sponsorships amongst many top universities. As many believe that

2. Paying College Athletes 1
student athletes deserve to be compensated, doing so would be too complex, unreasonable, and
destructive to many smaller universities that are barely operational. Further, society cannot forget
that being a college athlete is a privilege that is earned through excelling in areas beyond the
sport itself. Positioning against paying college athletes is merely the realization to the future’s of
student athletes and the various colleges in the United States.
As expected, the NCAA as a whole makes millions of dollars in revenue yearly. In fact,
according to USA today for the 2014 fiscal year the NCAA made $989 million dollars, just short
of one billion (Berk, 2015). Obviously, big teams in such divisions like the SEC or Big 12,
generate millions of dollars through their football programs alone. For example, in 2014 the
Texas Longhorns out of the Big 12 made a total beyond 161 million dollars based off data from
USA today (USA2). Though there is a lot of talk about the large quantity of money generated off
college athletics, few understand that 90% of what’s earned is reinvested into various student
athlete support systems according to the official website of the NCAA (NCAA1, 2015).
Reinvestments include but are not limited to various scholarship funds, educational enhancement
funds, and even wealth distribution amongst lower level colleges. These various allotted funds
are strictly in place for the better of the student athletes.
The reality of paying college players would undoubtedly benefit some college athletes,
but, according to the NCAA’s official page, there are approximately 460,000 of them competing
(NCAA1, 2015), making it difficult for paying them all to become a reality. Ultimately,
misunderstanding the complexity of collegiate athletics, makes paying players seem a lot
simpler. Complex issues arise such as determining the pay scale for each athlete and how to
distribute the money to different sports programs at each school. These questions are largely
unanswered due various roadblocks. Further, in terms of the revenue generated per team, equal

3. Paying College Athletes 2
competition would be near impossible. For example, if you were to take the Texas Longhorns of
the Big 12 and compare them to Iowa State, who are also with the Big 12, and consider their
$92,864,806 million dollar difference in revenue according to USA Today, how could you
facilitate a financial plan that would allow for somewhat equal competition? Considering that the
revenue difference is as severe as it is, this goal would be very unlikely.
Another factor that is seldom mentioned is the amount of benefits that are already being
provided to student athletes from their universities. Though it may not come in the form of a
cash payment, the NCAA funds many programs that benefit the educational, financial, and health
needs of student athletes. Among the educational benefits offered are scholarship programs,
degree-completion grants, and internship opportunities. The financial benefits offered include
assistance in the case of a catastrophic injury and a program to help students deal with unmet
financial needs. The NCAA also offers year-round drug-testing programs to all student athletes
for their benefit (NCAA 2, 2015) Thank to this large variety of benefits, it is clear that the
student athletes are offered a large amount of assistance to help assist them throughout their time
with their universities.
Now that the benefits that college student athletes receive have been brought to light, lets
propose the question of what would happen if all of those benefits were suddenly taken away
from the students so they could all be paid instead. Once the revenue was divided up and
salaries were granted, the students would actually end up on the wrong side of the financial issue.
Then, all of a sudden, the same student athletes that were all lobbying to be paid for playing
would be the same individuals complaining about how all of their benefits were taken from them.
Though the benefits currently offered by the NCAA may not seem like enough to some student
athletes now, once those benefits were no longer an option they would realize the importance of

4. Paying College Athletes 3
them. Yes the students would be paid, but after all of the program expenses were dealt with and
the rest of the revenue was divided up amongst everyone, the salaries would not be enough to
benefit the students.
As of now, student athletes on scholarship get free room and board. If that scholarship
was taken from them and replaced with a salary, that would be a huge sum of money that those
athletes would need to suddenly account for. In fact, the average cost of room and board at a
four-year university is $10,138 (Collegedata, 2015), which would then be money coming straight
out of the student athlete’s pocket. Also, once the current NCAA benefits were no longer on the
table, if a student athlete were to suffer a severe injury, the university’s financial assistance
would no longer be an option. So even though the idea of being paid to play may seem good at
first, students would soon come to find that it would actually hurt them more than it would help.
When talking about the benefits that college student athletes receive during their time in
school, one factor that is seldom mentioned is the benefit of media exposure. The benefits of
universities and their student athletes being covered extensively by the media heavily favor the
athletes, as these actions give them the national exposure that helps to open doors for them
throughout their careers. A prime example of this would be the 2015 NCAA men’s basketball
tournament. This year, the tournament averaged 11.3 million viewers, which was up eight
percent from last year and was the highest average viewership in twenty-two years (NCAA 3,
2015). This kind of exposure for universities and their athletes, though coming in different
amount depending on the school, not only puts the athlete’s names on the map, but helps to open
career doors for them in the future.
Another factor that must be considered when talking about paying student athletes is Title
IX. If men get paid to play college sports, Title IX says women do, too. The National Labor

5. Paying College Athletes 4
Relations Board ruled that football players at Northwestern University are considered employees
of their university and have the right to form unions and also partake in collective bargaining.
The group that is arguing does not actually want to be paid to play, which is called, pay to play,
but they are instead simply asking for medical benefits and other things of that nature. If this gets
passed, people fear that college players will soon ask for actual salaries. The main sport that has
been the center of this argument is football, but the ruling from the National Labor Relations
Board would also impact women’s sport. If men get paod to play, then the women players must
also get paid, according to Title IX. A law professor from Western New England University once
explained in a blog if the men players were to get their medical needs and extended health
insurance, this would violate Title IX rules. Even though the men were the only athletes to speak
out about the situation and medical needs, according to Title IX regulations schools are required
to provide equal treatment to men’s and women’s programs. Everyone does not agree with those
regulations though, as previous court cases have ruled that it is okay for male coaches to be paid
more than female coaches due to the fact that men's’ sports bring in more money. Others have
argued that pay should be based on the revenue that a sport generates for its school. Even though
Title IX are regulations that mandate athletes and not coaches, it has also caused universities to
starting to worry about their wallets as well. ( Eveleth, 2014)
The main question that you may be asking is, if the courts allow football and men’s
basketball players to be paid or give them the right to collectively bargain, how does Title IX
factor into this equation? As of now, there has not been a case law just yet to provide us with that
answer. There have only been practical answers voiced by presidents, commissioners, and
athletic directors saying that if players are paid then it may result in women’s sports and non-
revenue men’s sports being cut. (Solomon, 2014) There is no way around Title IX to allow

6. Paying College Athletes 5
schools to only pay athletes who are in profitable schools, which are football and men’s
basketball. The idea of excluding revenue-producing schools from Title IX compliance goes all
the way back to 1972. Those attempts however, such as 1974’s Tower Amendment, have
failed(Voepel, 2011). Title IX has been seen as a roadblock for “pay to play”. They are seen as a
roadblock because of the gap between the profits of those two sports programs and all of the
other sports both male and female. This means that despite the friction between men’s sport and
Title IX, the latter may serve as the best protection for every program against pay for play that
did not take into account of all student-athletes (Voepel, 2011).
Paying players college athletes also creates controversy within the team, in relation to
uneven pay. For example, every team has its star players, or players that earn more recognition
than others. Knowing this, it is believed that it’s only fair that those star players deserve more
money than the less prominent players. Here lies another issue, Title IX clearly states that each
player, male or female, should get treated equally. There is not a clear way to manage everyone’s
egos by deciding to pay each individual athlete. Instead, this would create a toxic individualistic
environment in which everyone wants that top dollar, potentially destroying team chemistry. As
previously stated, by following through with paying college athletes, the NCAA will feel a
irreparable ripple effect destroying many low revenue College Athletic Programs.
Overall, the concept of paying college athletes, though may sound good, would not work
for the NCAA. When you consider all of the revenue that would have to be allocated to paying
these players, it does not make sense to sacrifice all of the other benefits that the university’s
offers in order to grant salaries to each individual. As of now, the NCAA offers its student
athletes numerous benefits that no longer could exist if they replace them with stipends. In the
long run, this lack of benefits would ultimately hinder the college athlete more than the salary

7. Paying College Athletes 6
would help them. Another factor that has to be considered is university revenue, as some schools,
such as Texas or Alabama, make significantly more money than smaller schools. This would, as
a result, affect the amount of salary that could be given to the university’s players, and ultimately
affect the university’s ability to function as a whole. Title IX would also come into play, as the
NCAA would not allow for male athletes to be paid more that female athletes. Even though the
revenue difference between men’s and women’s sports is significant, having to pay them all the
same amount of salary would make it impossible for the NCAA to accomplish. These reasons,
along with many others, are why it would make sense for the NCAA to pay its student athletes.
Reference Page:
2015 NCAA tournament has highest average viewership in 22 years. (2015, April 7). Retrieved
December 4, 2015, from http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2015-04-07/2015-ncaa-
tournament-has-highest-average-viewership-22-years

8. Paying College Athletes 7
Berkowitz, Steve. (March, 2015). NCAA nearly topped $1 billion in revenue in 2014. Retrieved
November 25th, 2015, from
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/03/11/ncaa-financial-statement-
2014-1-billion-revenue/70161386/
Eveleth, R. (2014). If Men Get Paid To Play College Sports, Title IX says Women Do, Too.
Retrieved from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/if-men-win-pay-play-
rights-female-athletes-will-have-get-paid-too-180950338/?no-ist
Investing where it Matters. (2014). Retrieved November 23, 2015, from
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/investing-where-it-matters
Ireland, C. (2013, May 8). Paying NCAA athletes: Con. Retrieved November 25, 2015, from
http://www2.palomar.edu/telescope/2013/05/08/college-athletes-con/
Solomon, J. (2014). If football, men’s basketball players get paid, what about women? Retrieved
from http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24581041/if-football-
mens-basketball-players-get-paid-what-about-women
Student Athlete Benefits. (2015). Retrieved December 4, 2015, from
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/finances/student-athlete-benefits

9. Paying College Athletes 8
Top NCAA School Revenues 2014. (2014). Retrieved November 25, 2015, from
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
Voepel, M. (2011). Title IX a pay-for-play roadblock. Retrieved from
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6769337/title-ix-seen-substantial-roadblock-
pay-play-college-athletics
What’s the price tag for a college education? (2015). Retrieved December, 2015, from
http://www.collegedata.com/cs/content/content_payarticle_tmpl.jhtml?articleId=10064