Turner 1

Raegan Turner
Professor Connie Douglas
ENG 112
18 October 2016

Who Deserves Pay at the Table?

Modern college athletics brings in millions of dollars from television
contracts, products resulting from marketing ventures, tickets sales, and
merchandise. There are a lot of components that go into making the viewing
experience for spectators now more glamorous. Who is really making the
show go on though? The student-athletes are providing the enjoyment for
our entertainment while they are pouring their blood, sweat, and tears into
their sport. Athletes are recruited into these schools solely to perform for
that university. They sign their name, as a high school student, committing to
give everything to that sport and university, while still maintaining their
academic endeavors at an above average standard. It is a lot for these
athletes, having to keep up with rigorous practice and game schedules,
finding time to complete their school work and attend class. Nevertheless,
the college-athlete learns to juggle everything to continue to do what they
love.

Turner 2

How can playing a sport, devoting countless hours day in and day out,
be considered a job? Student athletes may start to feel overwhelmed and as
though they are employees to their university or coaches. Advocates for
student-athlete rights argue that collegiate athletes deserve something more
than a scholarship that covers their tuition, room and board, and textbooks
for their dedication to the sport they participate. These people claim that
athletes deserve to receive pay for their commitment to the sport they play
and their universities. However, if this were to occur, fundamental changes,
such as paying the athletes, could alter the way that secondary educational
institutions operate.
The money that is acquired from National tournaments and from
televised games is quite a large amount. The National Collegiate Athletic
Association accrues over $770 million dollars each year from television
contracts and tickets to Division One men's basketball games alone bring in
an estimated $82.3 million dollars each year (Druckman). This money is
going to expand football stadiums and basketball arenas, to feed the
powerhouse coaches salaries, and for athletic equipment. It seems that this
money could be placed into the universities academics, trying to enrich the
students lives giving them a higher quality level of education. It does not
seem fair that student athletes are paid extra money, on top of what they
already receive in scholarship form, just to participate at their institution.
There are three voices that come to mind when discussing the debate of

Turner 3

pay for play for student athletes. Student-athletes themselves hold a

prominent opinion in the matter, as well as governing boards and school
officials; such as, the NCAA, hold a prominent view in whether athletes
deserve pay, and there are the pay for play advocates who seem to
believe money is the answer for student-athletes.
Athletes themselves feel as though they are overworked and
underappreciated, especially now with the boom in popularity of Division One
Athletics; such as, football and basketball. Athletes give so much of their
time to the sport that they play and what they receive back is minimal.
Football players at the University of Florida have a fourteen-hour day, most
of it devoted to their football responsibilities. However, many of these
student athletes look at college sports in two ways: one as indentured
servitude and the other as being an opportunity. Some athletes argue that
they should get paid for the revenue they provide for their school. A lot of
student-athletes are given an athletic scholarship. Some of these recipients
receive a place to stay, their education costs covered and sometimes and are
also offered an on campus job, that is if they can handle working with their
practice schedule. One might say this is enough, almost every expense is
covered for these athletes, but the athletes themselves have a little more to
say in the matter.
Student-athletes were asked if they feel like the time and dedication
they give to their sport for their school is a job and if they are employees

Turner 4

to their university. Hicks, a former football player for Boston College, recalls
that his position as an athlete shared similar characteristics to it being a job
with a time allotment that is expected; however, he felt blessed to have
been able to attend Boston College without paying for tuition, room and
board and books (Cooper). Other athletes argue that the money that is being
produced based off their name is not being used to benefit the university. A
lot of the money is given to coaching salaries and to expand football
stadiums; athletes would like it if that money directly benefited them instead
so that they feel some reward for all of their hard work. Another issue that
these student-athletes run into is not being able to pursue the major they
want because of the demanding practice schedule they have. Many classes
they would like to take conflict with times they have to be at practice or
games (Cooper). Student-athletes give up a lot in order to pursue their
collegiate careers as athletes; some of these athletes are looking for a little
bit more in return.
Specific collegiate sports governing boards and councils; such as, the
NCAA or university presidents, go measurable lengths to make sure that
collegiate athletes are not receiving compensation from their universities.
There is a common law that prevents an athlete from being considered an
employee to their school. Common laws states that someone is an
employee under these three conditions: the right of others to control a
person's activities, whether that person is compensated and if that person is

Turner 5

economically dependent on that compensation. To further expand on this

notion, Donald Remy, who is the NCAAs vice president and general counsel
for legal affairs, states that court precedent and tax laws have upheld the
status of collegiate athletes as only being students (Cooper). The NCAA has
further addressed this issue and made it clear that they are not employees to
their universities.
The NCAA is recognizing the growing issue of the fame and
commercialization that is a trend in collegiate sports. Instead of trying to fix
this by giving athletes money for their time, the NCAA is proposing a plan
that hopes to place more emphasis on the academia of universities and
colleges. The plan that the NCAA is proposing includes a new academicperformance requirement that would not allow teams from participating in
postseason competition, including football bowls, unless they achieve what
amounts to a fifty percent graduation rate for players (Jost). Many colleges
lower the academic standards when recruiting athletes in order to get the
players they want on their team, but then these athletes might go on to
struggle at their schools. Schools and the NCAA are taking measures to help
out the players associated with college sports, but also to get the focus of
college back to the academics. While the NCAA completely prohibits the idea
of any type of monetary imbursement for student-athletes now, they are
taking steps in the direction of giving more power back to the athletes.

Turner 6

Another group of people who hold a voice in the debate of paying

athletes are those pay for play advocates. Returning to the issue of
athletes being considered employees; the discrepancy about the matter of
determining whether or not collegiate athletes are considered employees to
their universities and colleges still presides. Michigan State law professors,
Robert and Amy McCormick, seem to think these athletes are
considered employees under federal labor laws and regulations. The
McCormicks support this and state that under these conditions, student
athletes would actually be able to negotiate their own wages, hours and
working conditions, and to form unions (Cooper). Robert McCormick
commented about these athletes, "There are more demands put on these
young men than any employee of the university. These young men are
laboring under very strict and arduous conditions, so they really are laborers
in terms of the physical demands on them while they're also trying to go to
school and being required to go to school (Cooper). Athletes have to adjust
to a busy life, balancing homework, school affairs, and their sport. Advocates
are calling for a little something to relinquish athletes in order for them to be
one hundred percent successful.
Two student-athletes rights advocates, Thomas Hurst and Grier
Pressly, came up with a simple solution that would not allow the athlete to
attain the employee status to their university. The proposed idea is to
incorporate laundry money at Division One universities into all student

Turner 7

athletes scholarships. The proposal includes that a nominal monetary

amount- thirty to fifty dollars be incorporated in each students scholarship
package. This laundry money would provide a student athlete with adequate
funds to pay for the concerns the average college student faces; such as,
being able to afford new personal hygiene products or a bus ticket back
home. By incorporating the money into the scholarship itself, the studentathlete does not attain an employee status (Haden). This is a small solution,
that would not be that costly for a university, to curb the hardships that
many student-athletes face daily. Advocates for pay for play are not
demanding that multi-million dollar salaries should be handed out to every
collegiate athlete, rather they would like to see a small change to better the
lives of these students.
Today, the college athlete gives an invaluable service to his or her
university. With the rise of multi-million-dollar coaching staffs, billion-dollar
television contracts, and corporate endorsements that fill the pockets of
coaches and universities. Proponents for pay for play are demanding that
some of this money is taken back from the coaches pockets, and put into
the athletes. On the contrary, opponents for the pay for play position feel
that the athletic scholarships the athletes receive is already enough.
However, despite the financial compensation universities provide to studentathletes in the form of athletic scholarships, student-athletes often do not

Turner 8

have enough money to pay for other living expenses that are part of daily
life; such as, a new pair of underwear or a toothbrush.
Most athletes are not able to juggle a part time job, school, and
dedication to their sport at the same time in order to pay for these nonessential items. Despite all of these concerns, the fight to determine if these
athletes deserve pay for their play continues. The student-athletes
themselves are going to continue to voice their opinions about this situation
with the pay-for-play advocates right by their side. The NCAA and other
governing boards might try to combat some of the views of the players and
keep everything how it is currently. Only time will tell if student-athletes will
get what so many of them are wanting.

Turner 9

Works Cited
Cooper, Kenneth J. "Should College Athletes be Paid to Play?" Diverse Issues in
Higher Education 28.10 (2011): 12-3. ProQuest. Web. 27 Sep. 2016.
Druckman, James N., et al. "The Role of Social Context in Shaping Student-Athlete
Opinions." PLoS One 9.12 (2014)ProQuest. Web. 3 Oct. 2016
Haden, Christopher W. "Foul! the Exploitation of the Student-Athlete: Student-Athletes
Deserve Compensation for their Play in the College Athletic Arena." Journal of
Law and Education 30.4 (2001): 673-81. ProQuest. Web. 27 Sep. 2016

Jost, K. (2011, November 18). College football. CQ Researcher, 21, 977-1000.

Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com