The Great Debate: Should College Football Athletes Be Paid?

Ever since the unpleasantness in Miami exploded, the big debate in college football has been “should athletes get paid?" Most analysts use the term “stipend," but it is essentially paying kids to play football. There are even coaches like Steve Spurrier coming out and offering to pay athletes out of their salary. So, is this a good idea? I’ll take a look at both sides of the debate. 

Argument for Paying College Football Athletes

With the recent issues at Ohio State and Miami coming to light, it seems like now is the best time to visit the issue of paying football athletes a stipend to cover expenses. A large number of these athletes come from inner-city areas where money is tight and times are tough. By providing players with some money, it lowers the chance that the player or their extended family will take money from other outside sources (agents, boosters, etc).

Since athletes would be less apt to take money, it lowers the cost to the NCAA to investigate these issues. The NCAA could then turn around and use that money to pay off commentators to stop saying the word “playoff." But seriously, fewer investigations would lead to less off-field distractions for teams. It would also mean fewer abrupt firings of ADs and coaches, as well as fewer suspensions for athletes.

While most detractors would hide behind the “they get an education” defense, top-tier players almost always leave college early before finishing their degree. The main reason is money. They want to be able to start providing for their family and are tired of living like a pauper even though they are stars. By paying a stipend, athletes may be more willing to stay an extra year to complete their education and have a marketable skill that doesn’t include throwing a ball.

The NCAA and colleges make billions from college football. It seems only fair that the athletes get a small piece of the pie. Players should be able to go out with friends or companions without having to worry about being able to pay for the experience. A player should be able to go to McDonald’s if they want to grab a quick bite to eat. It is easy for resentment to grow if the college is making money on an athlete’s hard work while the athlete in question can’t even buy a Big Mac.

Argument against Paying College Football Athletes:

With the recent issues at Ohio State and Miami, now, more than ever, it is important for the NCAA to stick to their guns and reinforce the rules that college athletes are not to be paid for their services. Life is about rules and regulations, and the sooner kids in their late teens learn this, the better.

The argument that by giving athletes some money will deter them from taking more money is flimsy. If a town has a problem with murder, the town doesn’t say, “Well, murder is still illegal, but you can beat the crap out of someone and be fine.” No, you draw the line in the sand. If it gets crossed, you call down the thunder; you don’t redraw the line further back.

I would postulate that NCAA investigations would be tougher, more expensive and more time-consuming if athletes were paid than if not. Right now, a college athlete walking down the street with gold chains, jumping into his new car, is going to peak some interest and lead to tough questions. If athletes start getting paid, then instead of stammering, they can say that they saved up their stipend money to buy the chains and car. Then it becomes a game of follow the money.

While not trying to hide behind the “they get an education” defense, education is not cheap. The average undergraduate tuition and fees for Ohio State University for 2011-2012 is $19,926 for Ohio residents and $34,974 for out-of-state residents (with the disclaimer that students should expect a five-to-10-percent increase yearly). So, that means that for four years, and out-of-state student would pay around $150,739 (figuring a five-percent annual increase).

That means that an 18-year-old athlete would be given $150,000-worth of services in exchange for his services on the football field. Seems like a fair deal when you consider he has a four-year audition for the NFL while classmates graduating are faced with a tough job market and the specter of college loan payments.

I think the biggest argument against paying college athletes is the logistical nightmare it creates for the NCAA and the furor it will create from the schools. In order to be fair, all colleges have to pay all players the same amount of money, meaning the redshirt freshman punter gets the same as the star quarterback. Not only that, but the third-string running back at Baylor has to be paid the same as the starting wide receiver at USC. You need to sit each and every college down and figure out a price that works for all of them; otherwise, it just becomes a lower level professional league with teams trying to outbid each other.

Now, if by some miracle, every college agreed upon a price to pay each college football athlete, and this was instituted, then a whole other fight would begin. College basketball, baseball and hockey players would be demand equal treatment. It would then trickle down to sports like lacrosse, swimming and any other sport you can think of. Plus, let’s not forget the inevitable Title IX lawsuit that would come with women’s sports demanding equal treatment as well. It would be an absolute disaster.

Conclusion

Both sides have valid arguments. Personally, I feel that the NCAA will stand pat and come down hard on all offenders. They have a monopoly on amateur football and they know it. They are going to make rules that benefit the most number of people. Cutting checks to every student athlete does not benefit the most number of people. So, while this was a fun debate, it’s all moot since the NCAA isn’t going to reward offenders.