Student Before Athlete

When discussing colleges, there is almost always a controversy on just about anything. Should college be free? Should students be allowed to carry guns on campus?  Should students have access to better financial aid? The main controversy, in recent years, has been whether or not NCAA student-athletes should be recognized as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Fair Labor Standards Act establishe 

minimum wage,overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child labor standards affecting fulltime and part-time workers as defined by the US Department of Labor and an employee is defined by Oxford Dictionary as a person employed for wages or a salary. With these two definitions, we can clarify that if these student-athletes are recognized as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, they would be legally required to earn a salary for practice, games, etc. Therefore, NCAA student-athletes should not be recognized as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

 

First and foremost, NCAA student-athletes shouldn’t be paid for their sport because no other college students get paid for attending college. A website by the name of Statista displays the number of students enrolled in collegiate educational institutions in the United States since 1965. A statistic shows that there was 20.41 million people who attended college in 2017. The NCAA website reveals that there are about 460,000 student-athletes in their organization. Simple math shows that 19,950,000 other college students are attending for reasons unrelated to athletics. Nearly 20 million students aren’t getting paid for pursuing higher education, therefore we shouldn’t pay the other 460,000 students, which would display them as more valued than the rest of their classmates. Furthermore, there’s a reason why student comes before athlete because your education will always come first and athletics/extracurricular activities come second. For this reason, paying student-athletes would cause these educational institutions to depend more on athletics than the education, which is the point of attending college. You may argue that college athletes should get paid because they generate revenue for their schools, and the NCAA as a whole. However, this argument is not functionable. Top research schools are bringing in millions of dollars in profit through their science departments. For example, Stanford University brought in 4.5 million dollars in the year 2006. Also, NYU brought in 157 million dollars, according to an article written on Forbes my Maureen Farrell. While science students are bringing in a revenue for their schools, they are not being paid and aren’t demanding to be paid, so student-athletes shouldn’t demand pay either.

Furthermore, scholarships and exposure are compensation enough for these student-athletes. As the NCAA website states, nearly 2.9 billion dollars are given out annually, in the form of scholarships, to more than 150,000 students in Division I and II schools. These scholarships provide students with their basic necessities like food and housing, so these athletes aren’t in terrible need to acquire these necessities and the money would most likely be used as petty cash or loose change. Additionally, many members of the college spectrum negate this issue. For example, Judy Rose, the athletics director for the Charlotte 49ers, states, I don’t think athletes are being exploited. I think there’s a symbiotic relationship there. Without the university platform for them to compete, there is no exposure for them. None. So that experience alone and that opportunity creates the platform for them, for visibility. I just think the money issue has clouded what the real purpose is, regardless of where the money is coming from and how much is coming in. I want the whole story to be told about the value of an education and put dollars to that.” Someone who has experience in collegiate athletics agrees, and even is going as far to say that athletes are receiving plenty in college, obviously more than athletes who do not get the platform for visibility that playing sports in college provides.

 

Lastly, it is unfeasible to pay all student-athletes because if you pay one student, you have to be able to guarantee you will pay all students. Some Division I schools, like Texas A&M, generate as much as $160,000,000, in which they might be able to pay their athletes. Although, of the 231 Division I schools in the country,  76% make less than $50,000,000 each year and 44% make less than $20,000,000 each year. If you are proposing to pay student athletes, then you are proposing to pay all student athletes and as stated above, most Division I schools don’t have the budget. Also, keep in mind that these are only Division I schools, the top money makers, Division II and III schools are not even included in these percentages and Division II and III schools make even less money than Division I schools. Also, get this. The NCAA doesn’t have the resources to pay all college athletes either. According to a Huffington Post article, the NCAA pulled in 80.5 million dollars surplus for the year. This may seem a like a lot until you do the simple calculations. If that 80.5 million dollars was divided amongst the 460,000 athletes that are apart of the NCAA, each athlete would receive 175 dollars payment for the year, which isn’t even close to a decent salary.

For all intents and purposes, I negate paying student athletes and recognizing them as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. An employee has, usually, already earned their degree and have entered the workforce. In my opinion, playing a sport doesn’t qualify as “working’ because it is simply a leisure activity. Athletes are given both housing and food under their scholarships, so this is not an issue, as the affirmation of this claim may state. Also, you have to keep in mind that these athletes are still college kids. College kids are notorious for using drugs and alcohol in college. If these athletes are paid, it can give them even more access to these dangerous substances. Lastly, my most important point is that paying these athletes makes these EDUCATIONAL institutions look more at athletics than schooling, which is the entire point of college. There’s a reason why student is before athlete and that’s because you must focus on your education first and your leisure activities second. Thus, I strongly urge the NCAA and collegiate institutions to vote against paying their athletes.

 

Works Cited

Farrell, Maureen. “Universities That Turn Research Into Revenue.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 12 July 2012, www.forbes.com/2008/09/12/google-general-electric-ent-tech-cx_mf_0912universitypatent.html#51004c896a3a.

Gaines, Cork. “The Difference in How Much Money Schools Make off of College Sports Is Jarring, and It Is the Biggest Obstacle to Paying Athletes.”Business Insider, Business Insider, 14 Oct. 2016, www.businessinsider.com/ncaa-schools-college-sports-revenue-2016-10.

“Scholarships.” NCAA.org – The Official Site of the NCAA, 10 Mar. 2017, www.ncaa.org/student-athletes/future/scholarships.

“Should College Athletes Be Paid? Quotes from Former Players, Officials.” Charlotteobserver, 11 Oct. 2014, www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/college/mens-basketball/article9201149.html.

Strachan, Maxwell. “The NCAA Just Misses $1 Billion In Annual Revenue.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 11 Mar. 2015, www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/11/ncaa-revenue-2014_n_6851286.html.

“Student-Athletes.” NCAA.org – The Official Site of the NCAA, NCAA, www.ncaa.org/student-athletes.

“U.S. College Enrollment Statistics 1965-2026.” Statista, www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enrollment-and-projections-in-public-and-private-institutions/.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back To Top
Skip to toolbar