A Scholarship Is Nice, but College Athletes Should Still Be Paid

Mr. Collins mentions that the Syracuse University football program has been losing money, he doesn’t mention that they’ve also been losing games….a lot of them.  Their record over the past 3 years has been among the worst in school history.  But during an average season, the money flows like rain in the Amazon. Additionally, the losing of the past 3 years has not stopped them from paying coach Greg Robinson his $1 million dollar per year salary.  A business can’t stop paying its employees just because it is losing money, just ask the New York Yankees.

The idea of “protecting athletes by not paying them” doesn’t make much sense if neither the athletes nor their families are asking for such protection. Such an argument is highly paternalistic and exploitative in nature. In fact, if the NCAA is making such a sacrifice by accepting their multi-million dollar paychecks and enduring the great challenge of paying tuition for players who add little value to the process, then I would expect them to welcome the idea of open market compensation. What is most ironic is that I have never once seen someone watch a college basketball game in order to see the coach or a commentator, so it doesn’t make sense to me that they are paid in cash, while athletes are given a scholarship that isn’t worth nearly as much as the revenue being brought into the university.

The bottom line is this: if the market were operating in a fair and orderly manner, the NCAA would not have to enforce so many rules to rig the system in its favor.  The fact that one set of operating rules exists for coaches and another exists for players implies that the system is structured and legislated to allow one group to profit handsomely from the labor of another.  If a school is losing money, then it should not have sports teams.  But the truth is that they are not losing money, which is why they keep their teams active.

Another interesting truth is that many members of the NCAA agree that players should be paid.  That’s why Walter Byers, former Executive Director of the NCAA, wrote a book stating that he believes athletes should have access to the same free market system that coaches have.  The question is not whether the NCAA knows the athletes are worth billions, they understand that.  The question is not whether they feel the athletes deserve to be paid, they understand that as well.  The question is whether the athletes have the POWER to be paid, particularly in light of a corrupt administrative process that has allowed the NCAA to operate in the form of a business cartel that restricts fair business competition.  In no other industry in America are all of the possible employers allowed to form a union and restrict worker salaries.  However, this is the case in the NCAA, where Duke, Kentucky, and Kansas all agree that their players won’t get paid.  If Walmart, Target and Kmart did the same thing to their employees, they would be hammered by the Justice Department for anti-trust violations.

The players can only get power if they either strike or go to Europe.  Brandon Jennings had the right idea, and I hope other players follow suit.  Also, a strike would be a great way to remind the NCAA that the players do bring value to the table.  Without the players, there is no game.  Without the game, millions walk out the door.  This clearly indicates that players are the primary revenue generators in this process.

Dr. Boyce Watkins is a Finance Professor at Syracuse University and a faculty affiliate at the College Sports Research Institute at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.  He does regular commentary in national media, including CNN, ESPN, BET, and CBS Sports.  For more information, please visit www.BoyceWatkins.net.

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?