November 4, 2011

NCAA Football – Is pay for play a viable option for college sports?

It’s not just a matter of morality or a simple disagreement of what the amateur status of college sports should mean and represent.

By Stephen Lars

The arguments have come and gone a long way for both sides. It’s not just a matter of morality or a simple disagreement of what the amateur status of college sports should mean and represent. It goes a little bit further than just that and makes he discussion of whether or not to pay students one that could be just a bit tricky to answer. One could argue that at the bottom of this mess, or to put it more elegantly, the corner stone of the discussion lies on a simple fact: collegiate sports generate a very high income to the schools and the conferences, and thus the effort such a lucrative institution as College Football of NCAA Hoops as an amateur league, is just contradictory and at best, a very weak argument set upon the college sports governing body.

Collegiate Sports athletes receive a free tuition in exchange for their services as student-athletes.

Collegiate Sports athletes receive a free tuition in exchange for their services as student-athletes. Considering the constant rise of tuition costs and that with the current economic crisis in the United States thousand of families are having sacrifice the dream of sending their kids to a higher education institution, getting a free education in exchange of playing a sport, sounds like one heck of a deal. But over the years, and considering that for decades now schools have had the chance to lucre from collegiate sports, be it by the sales of tickets, paraphernalia or T.V. rights, and that those profits have grown exponentially, it is also easy to understand why that current business model has come under fire lately.

And it’s not just the sports writers who are taking the first blows at the NCAA. It’s not too common to see this topics hit the more sophisticated magazines in the nation but just on the last October issue of the Atlantic, historian Taylor Branch harshly criticized the entire system and made a case for paying college athletes on the grounds of simple fairness. Branch, who is one of the strongest voices in the civil rights movement, has given the topic a certain prominence that has touched even those readers who don’t give much importance to which team makes it into the National Championship or which player takes home the Heisman. Yesterday, Congressman Bobby Rush of Illinois, compared the NCAA to the mafia and event went on to say that it’s directors had a bit of Al Capone.

NCAA president Mark Emmert has insisted upon a single issue. Under no circumstance is he willing to pay college athletes for playing a sport. On October 2th, the NCAA voted to allow schools to decide if they would give student-athletes $2000 a year to cover additional expenses. This seemed like a half measure taken by the NCAA to calm down the waters. Still, despite this decision to leave it up to the schools to throw a little extra love to the players, Emmert insisted that this annual stipend in no way constituted pay for play.

In a business model that gives the big famed conferences like the Big 10 or the SEC a reported income of nearly 1 billion dollars a year, it is hard to believe that $2000 a year in any way means a pay for play. It’s just not even close. Not because these is an amateur league, but because everyone is making money, except for the student athletes out in the field making the whole multimillion dollar industry possible. 

About the Author
Stephen Lars is a prominent sports blogger and currently covers the Sports news, previews and handicaps for the BetIAS Sportsbook. You may reprint this article in its full content, please note no modifications to it are accepted.