Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
The Daily Cardinal Est. 1892
Friday, March 29, 2024
Blake Duffin

Column: Paying college athletes is wrong and impractical

While in my sociology class, our lecture reached the topic of whether or not college athletes should get paid. Students and student-athletes weighed in on the discussion, but as usual with such a controversial topic, our class did not really come to a complete consensus.

This debate is one that has been discussed for a while now, and it seems to be consistently reappearing in the media. It is such a difficult topic to review because there are so many variables that go into making such a drastic change. Who will get paid? How much will they get paid? What will this do to recruiting? There are endless questions that accompany such a proposition.

After considering many pros and cons to this scenario, I have come to the conclusion that the current system should remain as is.

One of the most frequent arguments for paying athletes is that the school makes so much money off of the athlete’s efforts. This is one of the biggest myths about NCAA Division I sports. According to USA Today, only 23 of the 228 athletic programs at NCAA Division I public schools produced enough money to cover all of their expenses. In fact, very few schools do not accept subsidies for their programs.

For athletic programs that do not generate a surplus, but instead spend more money than they make, they will have to get money by cutting other expenses, using money from the school or even student fees. Money that could be going towards the student body as a whole is going towards athletic programs. This can result in tuition increases and a decrease in education spending. Adding another expense to this deficit to pay athletes would not be economically smart.

Now, would it be wrong for athletic programs to tweak their budget so that players receive some type of payment? Maybe not, but you have to consider the large number of athletes are already receiving huge benefits.

Let’s begin with scholarships. Students on scholarship attend a college for free to little cost, which is an expense that would normally run the typical student at least $15,000 a year. That’s assuming the student is attending an in-state program. Out-of-state universities can be more than double that. An education and a degree both provide invaluable benefits that many athletes may not have gotten without a scholarship.

After tuition, you have to recognize all the other forms of compensation student-athletes receive: tutors, clothing, food and class priority, just to name a few.

If by chance there was a rule change and athletes could get paid, what would this do to recruiting? Schools that generate the most revenue would be able to offer players more money, giving them an unfair advantage over other less-profitable programs. The same teams would dominate sports year after year.

The dilemma also exists as to what level would you stop paying athletes. Division I, II, III and even high school sports teams make money. Should all levels receive compensation?

Further, only few athletic programs at most schools, including UW, generate a substantial amount of profit. These programs are generally football and men’s basketball. The rest of the athletic programs generate little to no profit. So, if you did decide to pay athletes based on the premise the schools make so much money off their efforts, you would have to deny payments to all athletes except for football and men’s basketball players.

College sports can be looked at like any business. The people at the top profit the most, even though the people at the bottom put in as much effort as anyone else. It may not seem fair, but in the society that we live in, that’s the way it is.

Enjoy what you're reading? Get content from The Daily Cardinal delivered to your inbox

Likewise, take a typical students unpaid college internship. They work as hard as their professional colleagues, but are not paid a cent. Instead, they get instrumental experience that will help them in their careers after college. This is much like college sports. Players use college athletics as an unpaid “internships” where they can become prepared for a possible career in a professional sport.

In the end, there are way too many unforeseen consequences of such a groundbreaking change to college athletics. Colleges are ultimately education institutions and that’s how they should remain. I don’t see the rules changing any time soon, nor do I think they should.

Should college athletes be compensated? Send your thoughts to Blake at sports@dailycardinal.com.

Support your local paper
Donate Today
The Daily Cardinal has been covering the University and Madison community since 1892. Please consider giving today.
Comments


Powered by SNworks Solutions by The State News
All Content © 2024 The Daily Cardinal