Webster’s dictionary defines “compensation” as remuneration, pay or anything given as an equivalent. Professional athletes are always paid for their services as such. However, a controversy has arisen over whether college athletes should be similarly compensated for their services, which gives rise to numerous other conundrums. Colleges use the image and talent of basketball and football players to make vast sums of money. Some athletes think they should share in those revenues or be compensated for their services.
Photo credit: Muffet / Foter / CC BY
But aren’t they already being paid? Football and Basketball players in Division I of the NCAA receive compensation in the form of scholarships, the value of which may far exceed the cost of tuition and books. Expenses such as additional tutoring, room, board and some minimal spending money may be included, but when one adds this up, the total may well exceed what any other student receives in the form of non-reimbursable financial aid from the university. It likely will exceed each year the amount of income a newly minted college graduate might expect in the form of salary, even before he or she pays income taxes on the wages. For a few fortunate college players, the free college stint may set them up for lucrative professional contracts, particularly the infamous “one and done” players. Therefore, it seems inconsistent that someone receiving these tax free benefits should demand payment for the sales of their image or jersey because they are offered an education and other benefits in exchange for their hard work. They are not indentured servants who don’t have the option to take their talents elsewhere, such as a freight loading dock. If they are truly exceptional at their sport, they can always choose to offer their skills to a professional team somewhere in the world, perhaps at less money than if they had some American college under their belt. Unfortunately, the above analysis is facile at best. It doesn’t consider the athlete who is on a partial scholarship or no scholarship at all. It doesn’t address the gender differential for women’s sports which may not generate enough revenue for the college to “profit” from them. There are a number of sports that are not significant revenue generators at all, e.g. swimming, tennis and cross country. Should those athletes be treated differently than the football or basketball star? If so, why? How about the performance artists who stage plays or art exhibitions? Should we just pay all students who offer their talents to the public for the benefit of the university? Should colleges be exempt from laws that affect everyone else with regard to compensation? These issues all arise in the context of institutions which claim to be academic in nature but have decided to get into the entertainment business on the side. This all started with college clubs playing against one another for the furtherance of the school spirit. It has now escalated into a huge financial model where things such as the NCAA Final Four or the College Football Playoff command many millions of dollars in revenue. Academics don’t seem to play a part in deciding whether West Virginia should be a part of the Big 12 conference, which only has 10 teams. Should a team be in particular conference for football but not basketball, baseball or wrestling? Money has corrupted the learning process at almost every level, but with college athletics, it is brought to our living rooms in living color on a large screen. Hypocrisy is alive and well in our nation’s highest learning institutions!
