Reflecting on the Shame of College Sports: Should NCAA Div 1 Basketball and Football Players Get Paid?

This idea of Pay-for-Play for college athletes has been widely debated on both sides of the spectrum.  Many of the arguments I have seen and read that actually bring up valid points and hold some weight are the ones advocating for not paying the players.  On the positive side of paying players people refute allowing it because the athletes are already getting a scholarship of somewhere around $100,000 and they don't need to be greedy and getting more (Hartnett, 2013).  In a New York Times article by Tyson Hartnett in October of last year he points out three reasons of why it is unfair to not pay the athletes: first, many coaches of these athletes are making $100k+ a year and if their team makes it the playoffs they get bonuses; second, the "non-profit" NCAA signs multi-billion dollar contracts with TV companies; third, the athletic programs bring hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars.  These back-up Hartnett's argument by showing that the coaches are making an incredible amount of money with bonuses on top and what do the players get in return for making the playoffs, nothing.  Furthermore, if the NCAA is supposed to be non-profit and be for the benefit of the athletes then shouldn't some of these billion dollar contracts be going back to the athletes.

On the other side of this argument Darren Rovell wrote an article on ESPN.com about the reasons why we should not pay the athletes.  In Rovell's article he quotes NCAA president Mark Emmert saying "The reality is schools are spending between $100,000-$250,000 on each student-athlete."  This side of the argument really tries to bring in this idea of college athletes and especially football and basketball athletes are exploited labor within in college athletics. Emmert mentions that many people have suggested that players should be able to sell their own autographed memorabilia and market themselves while playing in college.  However, he refutes that point because the popularity and greatness of some athletes is higher than others so the range of money athletes would be receiving would be based on their playing and skill level.  This, Emmert says sounds a lot like paying for play which is what the NCAA is trying to stay away from and to keep the amateur sanctity of college athletes.

This is something that I have thought about and have many times fallen into this gray area between both arguments.  On one hand I feel college athletes receive a lot of benefits from college athletics as far as a scholarship, gear, clothes, and shoes that are considered absolutely necessary for the athletes to perform.  So, in this argument I don't think the athletes should be paid at all and they receive enough benefits for it to be worthwhile.  However, I also believe that college athletics is comparable to a full-time job and that these athletes are giving up so much of their time to perform for the university that they should be paid for the everything they do.  This argument will linger on for a long time so I think I have some time to make my final decision.