College Athletes should not be Paid Essay

Introduction

Recent years have witnessed intensifying debate over whether college athletes should receive direct monetary compensation beyond their current educational scholarships and benefits. This controversy has escalated with landmark legal challenges, including the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in NCAA v. Alston (2021) which struck down certain NCAA restrictions on education-related benefits for student-athletes. While this ruling stopped short of mandating direct salaries, it has accelerated calls for transforming college athletics into a professional employment model. Proponents of paying college athletes cite the substantial revenues generated by major sports programs, allegations of exploitation within the current system, and the physical risks athletes assume.

However, this essay advances the position that implementing a direct payment model for college athletes would fundamentally undermine the educational mission of collegiate athletics, create unsustainable financial and equity challenges, and ultimately transform an educational enterprise into a professional sports league without the corresponding structures and protections. While acknowledging legitimate concerns about athlete welfare and economic fairness, this analysis argues that the significant educational, developmental, and experiential benefits provided to student-athletes—coupled with recent reforms allowing name, image, and likeness compensation—already constitute substantial value. By examining the educational purpose of college athletics, the financial realities across diverse institutions, competitive balance concerns, and potential unintended consequences, this essay demonstrates that maintaining a reformed collegiate model, rather than implementing direct payment systems, better serves both the academic mission of higher education and the long-term interests of student-athletes themselves.

The Educational Foundation of College Athletics

At its core, collegiate athletics exists within and should remain aligned with the educational mission of higher education institutions. Universities are fundamentally academic enterprises, not professional sports franchises, and their athletic programs historically developed as extensions of their educational purpose. The concept of the "student-athlete" reflects the primacy of academic identity and educational objectives over athletic pursuits. This foundational principle distinguishes college sports from professional leagues and provides their distinctive value proposition: the opportunity to compete at a high level while simultaneously pursuing higher education. The current model, even with its acknowledged flaws, preserves this essential character of college athletics as an educational enterprise rather than a commercial one. NCAA institutions collectively provide approximately $3.6 billion annually in athletic scholarships, which enable nearly 180,000 Division I and II student-athletes to access higher education, many of whom might otherwise face significant financial barriers to college attendance.

Scholarship athletes currently receive substantial compensation in the form of educational benefits—including tuition, fees, room, board, books, and academic support services. At Division I private universities, these benefits often exceed $70,000 annually, representing significant value even before considering additional supports such as elite coaching, medical care, nutrition, and strength training. Recent reforms following the Alston decision have further expanded permissible education-related benefits to include items such as computers, science equipment, musical instruments, and post-eligibility scholarships. These educational benefits align precisely with the core mission of universities as institutions of learning. Converting this model into an employer-employee relationship would fundamentally alter this alignment, potentially relegating educational achievement to secondary status behind athletic performance and financial considerations.

Evidence suggests the current model successfully promotes educational attainment for many athletes. NCAA data indicates that Division I student-athletes graduate at rates exceeding those of their non-athlete peers, with an overall Graduation Success Rate of 89% reported in 2020. The academic support services, structured environments, and graduation incentives built into athletic programs contribute to these outcomes. This educational focus represents the essential distinction between collegiate and professional sports—college athletics ideally functions not as an end unto itself but as one component of a broader educational experience that prepares young people for lifetime success beyond athletics. Paying athletes directly would risk transforming this relationship into a primarily commercial one, fundamentally altering both the purpose and operation of college sports programs.

Financial Realities and Inequities

Contrary to popular perception, the financial reality across collegiate athletics reveals a landscape where implementing direct payment systems would be economically unsustainable for the vast majority of institutions and would exacerbate existing inequities. While media coverage often focuses on the handful of highly profitable athletic departments at elite Power Five conference schools, these represent outliers rather than the norm. According to NCAA financial data, fewer than 25 Division I athletic departments consistently generate profits, while the remaining 335+ departments require substantial subsidies from their institutions. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic created additional financial pressures, approximately 94% of Division I athletic departments reported expenses exceeding revenues in typical fiscal years. These subsidies frequently come from student fees, institutional allocations, and state funding—resources that would otherwise support broader educational objectives.

Implementing salary models would disproportionately benefit athletes in revenue-generating sports (primarily football and men's basketball) at wealthy institutions while potentially reducing opportunities across other sports and less-resourced schools. The median Division I athletic department sponsors 18 sports teams with approximately 500 total student-athletes. Under a market-based payment system, economic reality would dictate allocating the majority of financial resources to revenue sports, potentially at the expense of Olympic and women's sports that rarely generate significant revenue but provide valuable educational and competitive opportunities for thousands of students. This concentration of resources would directly contradict the educational mission of providing broad-based participation opportunities across diverse sports.

Gender equity presents another significant challenge. Title IX requirements mandate equal treatment of male and female athletes, including in financial compensation if such systems were implemented. In a direct payment model, institutions would face the choice of either paying all athletes equally—creating unsustainable costs—or potentially eliminating women's and non-revenue sports programs to maintain compliance while focusing resources on commercial sports. Neither outcome aligns with educational objectives or serves the broader student-athlete population. Knight Commission data indicates that in most athletic departments, football and men's basketball already receive disproportionate resource allocation compared to other sports; direct payment systems would likely amplify these disparities. The inevitable result would be fewer opportunities for participation in collegiate athletics, directly contradicting the objective of expanding educational access through sport.

Competitive Balance and Institutional Diversity

College athletics derives much of its cultural significance and appeal from its distinctive competitive structure, which enables institutions of varying sizes, resources, and missions to compete against one another. This system creates the possibility for smaller schools to achieve success against traditional powers—the celebrated "underdog" narratives that distinguish college sports from professional leagues where market size and financial resources more directly determine competitive outcomes. Direct payment models would fundamentally undermine this competitive balance by further concentrating talent at wealthy institutions and widening the gap between resource-rich and resource-limited programs. Recent developments in name, image, and likeness (NIL) marketplaces already demonstrate this centralizing effect, with reports of seven-figure NIL deals drawing elite recruits predominantly to traditional powers with wealthy donor bases and established brand value.

The current collegiate landscape encompasses remarkable institutional diversity—from small liberal arts colleges to massive state universities, from historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) to specialized technical institutions—all participating within the same competitive framework. This diversity reflects American higher education's distinctive character and allows athletics to serve varied institutional missions and student populations. Payment models that advantage already-wealthy programs would accelerate talent concentration and potentially eliminate meaningful competition for programs without substantial financial resources. The history of college football's competitive structure illustrates this concern: as resources have concentrated in Power Five conferences, competitive gaps have widened, with fewer opportunities for programs outside these wealthy conferences to compete at the highest levels.

Athletic conferences have historically functioned as associations of institutions with shared academic profiles, geographic proximity, and competitive capabilities. Substantial economic disparities introduced through direct payment systems would likely fragment these traditional affiliations, potentially creating stratified "super leagues" based solely on financial resources rather than broader institutional compatibility. Such restructuring would emphasize commercial considerations over educational ones and further separate athletics from academic missions. Ultimately, payment models would accelerate the transformation of college sports into a minor league system for professional sports, losing the distinctive character and competitive diversity that has historically distinguished collegiate athletics and provided opportunities across diverse institutional contexts.

Alternative Reform Approaches

While direct payment models present significant problems, legitimate concerns about economic fairness for student-athletes can be addressed through alternative reforms that maintain educational priorities while improving athlete welfare. Recent policy changes allowing athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL) represent a significant step toward economic fairness without converting universities into employers. These policies enable athletes with marketable personas to monetize their popularity through endorsements, social media influence, and personal appearances while preserving their student status and the educational foundation of college athletics. Early evidence suggests substantial opportunities for many athletes, particularly those with entrepreneurial skills and personal brands, to generate significant income through these channels without requiring institutional payment systems.

Further reforms could enhance student-athlete welfare within the collegiate model. These might include expanded health insurance coverage extending beyond eligibility periods, guaranteed four-year scholarships regardless of athletic performance, improved due process protections, enhanced transfer flexibility, and increased student-athlete representation in governance structures. These approaches address legitimate welfare concerns without fundamentally altering the educational nature of collegiate athletics. Additionally, expanded revenue-sharing models directed toward educational trust funds, degree completion programs, and post-eligibility healthcare could provide financial benefits aligned with academic missions. Some conferences have already implemented these reforms, including guaranteed scholarships, post-eligibility educational funds, and improved healthcare coverage.

Expanding professionalism in basketball through enhanced developmental leagues provides another potential solution that preserves collegiate athletics for those prioritizing education while offering alternative pathways for athletes focused primarily on professional development. The NBA's G League Ignite program and Overtime Elite demonstrate viable models for talented athletes seeking professional development and compensation outside the collegiate system. These pathways provide appropriate options for athletes whose primary goal is professional advancement rather than education, allowing collegiate athletics to remain focused on those who value educational opportunities alongside athletic competition. This approach acknowledges that college athletics need not serve as the exclusive development pathway for professional sports and allows both models to operate according to their distinctive purposes.

Practical Implementation Challenges

Beyond philosophical and financial concerns, implementing direct payment systems for college athletes would create significant practical challenges without established precedents or infrastructure. First, determining appropriate compensation levels presents complex questions: Would payment be standardized across sports, positions, and performance levels, or would it follow market-based differentiation? The former approach contradicts economic reality, while the latter creates extreme disparities between revenue sport stars and other athletes. The professional leagues that proponents often cite as models operate with sophisticated collective bargaining agreements, salary caps, revenue-sharing mechanisms, and draft systems developed over decades—structures entirely absent in collegiate athletics. Creating comparable systems would require complete restructuring of collegiate sports governance and likely lead to frequent labor disputes similar to those seen in professional leagues.

Employment status for athletes would trigger numerous additional legal and regulatory requirements beyond direct compensation. These include workers' compensation for injuries, unemployment insurance, overtime regulations, payroll tax obligations, and potential unionization. These employment structures contradict the flexible, educationally-focused scheduling and participation models that currently accommodate academic priorities. Athletes' practice time, competition schedules, and academic accommodations would necessarily become subject to employment law rather than educational policy, potentially limiting rather than expanding athlete welfare protections. Institutions would face increased liability for sports-related injuries under employment models compared to the current educational framework, potentially leading to risk-averse decisions limiting participation opportunities.

The existing collegiate sports governance structure, while imperfect, has developed specific regulations balancing competitive, educational, and welfare considerations. Professional employment models would necessitate entirely different regulatory approaches focused primarily on labor relations and business operations rather than educational objectives. The NCAA or successor organizations would need complete restructuring to function as professional league offices rather than educational associations. This transformation would likely eliminate many of the distinctive characteristics that separate collegiate from professional sports, including eligibility standards tied to academic progress, restrictions on practice time to accommodate educational responsibilities, and governance structures involving educational administrators.

Conclusion

College athletics occupies a distinctive position in American culture and education, providing opportunities for high-level competition within educational contexts that serve broader developmental objectives beyond athletic performance. While the current system requires continued reform to address legitimate concerns about athlete welfare and economic equity, implementing direct payment models would fundamentally transform this enterprise from an educational one to a commercial one, with significant negative consequences for most institutions and athletes. The educational benefits, developmental opportunities, and participatory access provided through the current model—augmented by recent NIL reforms—already constitute substantial value aligned with the core missions of higher education institutions.

Rather than converting universities into employers of athletes, meaningful reform should focus on enhancing the educational value of athletic participation, expanding welfare protections within the student-athlete model, and ensuring athletes receive the full benefits promised under the collegiate system. These approaches preserve what makes college athletics distinctive and valuable—its connection to educational mission, broad-based participation opportunities, and development of skills and attributes that serve students throughout their lives beyond athletics. While professional sports certainly have legitimate place in society, they serve fundamentally different purposes than educational institutions. By maintaining this essential distinction while implementing targeted reforms to address specific concerns, we can preserve college athletics as an educational enterprise that benefits students, institutions, and society through its unique integration of competitive athletics with higher education.

Did you like this example?

304

13