Last week, the National Labor Relations Board ruled in favor of a group of Northwestern University football players who are attempting to unionize. It was a major victory for student athletes in their fight against the money juggernaut that is the NCAA. The ruling sets up a potential big fight between student athletes and the NCAA regarding the debate on whether college athletes deserve payment for their services that could wind up in the Supreme Court.
Sports fans are divided over whether college athletes should get paid; they shouldn’t, and here’s why.
Despite enormous revenues via football and men’s basketball for the NCAA and a select group of universities — including UF — most college sports are not particularly profitable, and in fact, many operate at a loss. According to a recent study, just 22 schools profited from football during the 2009-2010 academic year. College football is hardly the cash cow that some believe the sport to be.
The general consensus seems to be that football players generate enormous revenues, but in the end, it’s only a few select schools that benefit. Many schools spend an upward of $90,000 a year on some athletes.
If college football and basketball players obtain the right to be paid, what do we do about the thousands of athletes — who also work incredibly hard on the field and in the classroom — who participate in athletics that don’t rack up massive profits?
Do they get paid, too?
It’s unfair and wrong to pay football and men’s basketball players because they participate in a sport that generates millions of dollars in revenue, but not pay the thousands upon thousands of student athletes competing for their schools in other sports. Additionally, what sum of money is appropriate for the players? Is it right for a star football player to receive a sizable salary because football makes buckets of money while a women’s lacrosse player with a 3.9 GPA gets minimum wage?
Not in the least.
For the privilege of being a student athlete, students get full scholarships to some of the country’s best public and private universities and are able to achieve a level of education they otherwise may not be able to attain without the scholarship.
Is it wrong that the NCAA, conferences and schools profit on the backs of these athletes? Perhaps it is, but the scholarships and opportunities presented to the students cannot be discounted.
Instead of giving college athletes a salary, we need to do a better job of encouraging them to finish their degrees and utilize the educational opportunities in front of them.
This seems fairly naïve until you consider the story of former Gators football player Matt Elam. Despite earning a seven-figure salary in the NFL, Elam returned to Gainesville during the offseason to continue his degree. He even took a low-paying job at a sporting goods store to get a better grasp on the business he wants to pursue following his NFL career.
Why?
Elam seems to understand that his football career could be very short, and to succeed in the business world, he needs a college education.
If you need another great example at UF, take a look at our men’s basketball team. Four seniors — a rarity in today’s day — start for the team, and senior center Patric Young is a two-time Academic All-American. For those players, success both on the court and in the classroom is of the utmost importance. Will they get paid one day? I’m sure many of them will, but right now, they understand that they’re student athletes — not professionals.
Athletic careers make up what amounts to a small portion of the lives of players. If we aim to produce more Matt Elams, UF basketball players and thousands of other student athletes need to stay in school and receive their degrees so they’ll have the tools to succeed both on and off the field.
Money is only temporary, but an education is for a lifetime.
[Joel Mendelson is a UF graduate student in political campaigning. His columns appear on Mondays. A version of this column ran on page 7 on 3/31/2014 under the headline "College athletes shouldn’t get paid"]
