University Vs. Student Athlete
By Daniel Seegers
Abstract
There is a great depth of discourse
concerning the debate over whether college athletes should be paid. Some argue
that athletes significantly contribute to colleges’ revenues from their sports
programs and thus deserve a portion of the profits. Others argue that athletes
already receive scholarships and other benefits, and thus are already “paid.”
This literature review explores this issue through the research questions “How
do universities and student athletes benefit from one another?”, “How do
universities use the funds they generate from college sports programs?”, and
“What would be the impact on universities of paying college athletes?” A
survey, “Should Student Athletes Be Paid?” (2014), was also conducted online.
It surveyed 18 participants, 10 of which responded that college athletes should
not be paid. This survey, though limited, may provide a glimpse into how the
majority of people feel about the issue. Through the exploration of these
questions and the conduction of the survey, a more informed opinion can be
formed about the topic and further research can be conducted, ideally leading
to agreed upon action concerning whether student athletes should be paid.
The University of Texas at Austin topped
the charts in 2013 for the most revenue from its athletic department with $165
million (USA TODAY, 2014b). This is the type of information that sparks heated
arguments and media rampages arguing, from one perspective, that universities
make wheelbarrow-fulls of money on the backs of their unpaid student athletes,
or, from a different perspective, that student athletes are already
compensated. This debate is controversial and many variables must be considered
to more fully grasp the issue.
Most will not dispute the fact that some
colleges make big money from their athletics programs. Where people will
dispute, however, is how the universities use this money, how much these
universities actually make, and whether student athletes should receive a cut.
Neil Buchanan (2013), an economist and legal scholar, in his article “College
Athletes, Full-Ride Scholarships, and Anti-Intellectualism” states, “The
problem is that the standard story is based on a gross distortion of reality”
(para. 4). He would argue that what people seem to ignore is that student
athletes are compensated through scholarships (Buchanan, 2013). Arguing the
opposite, Tyson Hartnett (2013), from the Huffington Post, maintains that the
point is “that a scholarship doesn’t equal cash in a player’s pocket. Even with
any type of scholarship, college athletes are typically dead broke” (para. 9).
Clearly there are very opposed viewpoints regarding this topic. A few
questions, then, that must be considered when exploring this issue are:
·
How
do universities and student athletes benefit from one another?
·
How
do universities use the funds they generate from college sports programs?
·
What
would be the impact on universities of paying college athletes?
Exploring these questions will enable a
more rounded understanding of the relationship between college athletes and
universities and how universities use athletic funds. This understanding will
allow for more well-equipped and informed decisions and conclusions about the
topic.
How
do universities and student athletes benefit from one another?
The relationship between athletes and
universities is mutually beneficial--that is to say both universities and
student athletes receive some benefits by coexisting together. Though this is the
case, people would argue about how they benefit. In his article for Forbes, “Pay
College Athletes? They’re Already Paid Up To $125,000 Per Year”, Jeffrey
Dorfman (2013) details some of the benefits college athletes receive by noting
that, “student athletes on athletic scholarships are essentially paid already
because they receive free tuition, room, meal plans, and some money for books
and miscellaneous expenses” (para. 3). Thus though college athletes are not
given a salary they do receive forms of compensation. Dorfman (2013) goes on to
say that not all student athletes receive scholarships and that not all receive
full scholarships, but that students in the sports that make money are
receiving forms of compensation through “educational benefits and living
expenses,” and that “To an economist, this is pay” (para. 3).
Scholarships received by athletes are not
small benefits to be quickly dismissed. Neil Buchanan (2013) says that, “the
out-of-pocket cost of receiving what scholarship-holding athletes receive
ranges from over $80,000 to more than $230,000” (para. 14). Dorfman (2013) estimates
that, “a student athlete at a major conference school on full scholarship is
likely receiving a package of education, room, board, and coaching/training
worth between $50,000 and $125,000 per year depending on their sport and
whether they attend a public or private university” (para. 4). These numbers
obviously will vary from athlete to athlete and school to school, but the
principle remains the same--scholarships that athletes receive can be very valuable.
The student athletes with the greatest claim that they deserve a cut of a
university’s
profits
are also likely the students that receive the most benefits.
Another benefit related to scholarships
is that student athletes graduate with less debt than regular students. In an
article for The Chronicle of Higher Education,
Sander, Wolverton, and Fuller (2011) report, “57
percent of college students who received athletic scholarships graduated with
debt, compared with 65 percent of nonathlete students” (para. 4). The average cumulative debt for student
athletes was also smaller, with Sander, Wolverton, and Fuller (2011) reporting
that at graduation this debt was “$17,397 for recipients of athletic
scholarships compared with $23,173 for students who did not receive athletic
scholarships” (para. 4). Considering that most athletes do not end up going
into professional sports, the fact that they are able to graduate with less
debt is a very valuable benefit to them in later life.
College athletes also receive many other
benefits that are more difficult to measure, but exist nonetheless. Some of
these added benefits include free professional coaching, fitness training,
support from athletic trainers and physical therapists, as well as valuable
publicity (Dorfman, 2013). They also receive benefits such as flexibility on
school assignments and tests—small, but still added benefits.
Not all agree with the extent student
athletes are compensated. An area of major debate is the true value of the
scholarships these athletes receive. Regarding the scholarships, John Acquaviva
(2012), in his contribution to “Point/Counterpoint Paying College Athletes”,
notes that, “Today the ‘full ride’ scholarship can only include tuition, fees,
room, board, and books,” and that this, “does not cover the full cost of
attending college” (para. 23). The Collegiate Athletes Coalition, Acquaviva
(2012) says, has estimated that the scholarships student athletes receive are
about $2000 short of covering the full cost of attending a university and that
they do not cover “expenses such as travel and sundries” (para. 24). This
argument that student athletes might need a little more money has been heard
elsewhere. Hartnett (2013) says, “If each athlete got $2000 paid over the
course of the semester, this would give them some spending cash and an opportunity
to start managing money” (para. 16). This very specific, and widely spoken of,
number—$2000—likely comes from an approval in October 2011 by the NCAA Division
I Board of Directors to make a change that would have provided athletes with a
stipend of $2000 for extra expenses (Pells & Armour, 2014). This decision
was tabled when smaller schools complained (Pells & Armour, 2014). As it
can be seen, however, not all scholarships are all-inclusive and cover the full
cost of attending a university. This must be considered as not all athletes
receive the same value of scholarship.
Faculty and staff of universities also
benefit from student athletes. Specifically among these faculty and staff, a
major topic of debate has been the salaries of college coaches. As coaches have
continued to be paid more over the past years, the debate to pay college
athletes has gained more fuel. Acquaviva (2012) demonstrates this through the disparity
between student athletes’ compensation and coaches’ salaries, saying, “This
unbalanced system allows athletes to earn the equivalent of $6.80-$7.69 an hour
while coaches like Nick Saban of Alabama or Mack Brown of Texas earn over five
million dollars a year” (para. 59). As college athletics continue to become
more and more competitive, universities feel the pressure to pay coaches more
and to build better facilities in order to compete. Thus, many universities are
benefitting enough to justify these coaches’ salaries and other high expenses
of growing athletics departments.
Universities also benefit from their
student athletes as “athletes earn their schools hundreds of thousands of
dollars, increase enrollment, and if they do well, provide a recruiting piece
for generations” (Hartnett, 2013, para. 17). Extreme cases such as The
University of Texas at Austin making revenues of $165 million in 2013
demonstrate just how much some universities benefit from their student athletes
(USA TODAY, 2014b).
In the survey “Should Student
Athletes Be Paid?” (2014) conducted during this research, 9 people were
surveyed about whether college athletes should be paid. In the survey,
administered online, benefits that both universities and college athletes were
presented and then the participants were asked whether, considering the
benefits of both parties, student athletes should be paid. Of the 18
participants, 10 responded that no, college athletes should not be paid, and 8
responded yes. Of the 18 participants, 9 were female, 7 of whom answered no and
2 of whom answered yes. The remaining 9 male respondents were more split on the
issue—3 responded no and 6 responded yes. Most (14) of the participants were
age 18-24 years old. While this survey is very limited in its number of
participants and application to the overall population, it may present a very
limited glimpse that, when presented with the benefits of both universities and
student athletes, the majority of people think that student athletes should not
be paid.
How
do universities use the funds they generate from college sports programs?
There is a prevalent notion that
university athletics make money hand-over-fist, however the majority of these
sports programs not only do not make money, but they operate at a loss. Dorfman
(2013), referencing an article from the USA Today, says that, “only 23 out of
the 228 Division I athletic programs managed to run a surplus in 2012” (para.
7). The easy answer, then, is that for the majority of schools the revenue they
generate from their sports programs is used to cover the cost of those
programs. This question is not so easily answered, however, especially when
considering some of the expenses of university athletics.
Another misconception that must be
cleared up when considering this issue is that all college sports make money. Generally
speaking, the only significant money-makers are men’s basketball and men’s
football—the rest either don’t make very little, or end up losing money.
Hartnett (2013) says, “some less popular teams like swimming, tennis, or
volleyball don’t earn the university much money, and the bigger sports like
basketball and football make up for the lost difference” (para. 14). While
college football may appear to generate giant revenues, some of this money must
be allocated to keep these non-revenue sports afloat.
The opposite of this is that while not
all college sports make money, the universities also spend a significant amount
of their revenue on nonessentials. In what has been deemed by many as an “arms
race,” universities are spending exorbitant amounts of money on sports
facilities. The University of Cincinnati, for example, is going to spend more
than $80 million expanding its
football
stadium by 2015, according to Cliff Peale (2013) in an article from the USA
Today. Salaries of coaches and upper level faculty have also been an aspect of
college
athletics
under scrutiny. According to the USA Today (2014a), 70 NCAA football coaches
were
paid
over $1 million dollars in 2013—a few being paid as much as $5 million. As the
following graphic “Highest-Paid Public Athletes” (Deadspin, 2013) demonstrates, university coaches are
often
the highest paid public employees of the state. While most universities have
more expenses than they do revenues, as
it can be seen, a significant amount of these expenses are attributed to
controversial aspects of the athletics departments. Peale (2013) notes that, “NCAA
data show that only 16.2 percent of the spending at Division I schools with
football, such as Miami, goes to student aid. The rest goes to salaries, game
expenses and facilities” (para. 25).
What
would be the impact on universities of paying college athletes?
Presently, paying college athletes is a
concept. It is a topic of significant discussion, but it has not yet become a
reality. Nobody knows exactly how paying college athletes will affect
university sports and the universities in general, but it will have an impact.
As mentioned previously, a major misconception about college athletics is that
they make significant amounts of money. Considering the fact that the majority
of universities lose money on their athletics, it is important to discuss what
impact paying college athletes will have on universities—including those that
make money, but more significantly those that do not.
A major impact of paying college
athletes will be the affect on non-revenue sports. There is a great likelihood
that universities that do not make a profit on their athletics would have to
reduce spending on non-revenue sports, or even cut them altogether. Dennis
Johnson (2012) in his contribution to “Point/Counterpoint Paying College
Athletes”, says paying football and basketball players would, “result in the
eventual elimination of most, if not all, of the non-revenue sports” (para.
13). If Johnson is correct, this means that universities would be offering
fewer opportunities for college athletes to play, and this would hurt student
athletes overall.
Universities would also be impacted
in other ways. Dorfman (2013) says that, “increasing pay to student athletes
could mean tuition increases at many colleges” (para. 8). If this is the case,
regular college students would bear part of the burden of paying college
athletes who already receive other benefits. Another consideration is the
affect Title IX will have on the payment of athletes. Glenn Wong (2014), in an
online article for the New York Times says that, “It is likely that the
additional benefits will need to be proportionally increased on the women’s
side” (para. 4). If colleges are required to pay all the athletes evenly, this
will further increase the cost and create more financial issues for the
schools. Wong (2014) also poses the question of whether paying college athletes
will jeopardize “the current tax-exempt status of college athletic programs” (para.
5). Faced with the possibility of losing tax exemptions, colleges would have to
find ways of making up these new costs.
The impact of paying college athletes
will not be felt uniformly. As demonstrated previously, some colleges will
likely have to make sacrifices, while others may not feel much of an impact.
For the schools that actually make a profit, it is possible they could afford
paying their athletes. Glenn Wong (2014) says that, “For 23 schools in Division
I, it will be easy” (para. 6). These schools may even be able to benefit, as
paying athletes would likely attract better talent. The issue here is that this
is a small number of schools. Wong (2014) goes on to say that, “The other 328
schools might need to reduce coaching and administrative salaries and eliminate
sports programs and opportunities” (para. 7).
The impact of paying college
athletes is a topic of discussion as it is not completely clear how the
universities will be impacted. There is a disparity between how schools will be
impacted, as some would be able to afford the payment and some would not. Some
could possibly benefit from it. What is clear is that there will be an impact,
and this impact will likely be felt more by smaller schools and schools that do
not earn a profit on athletics.
The
issue of whether to pay college athletes is under dispute. The issue itself can
be broken down into such aspects as how the universities and athletes benefit,
how the universities use the funds generated, and what impact paying college
athletes would have on the school. These issues were discussed in detail above
and should provide a foundation for a more rounded understanding of the issue,
as well as a basis for further research and discussion. In understanding this
information, one might better be able to form an educated opinion about the
topic and help to provide means for a solution. Discussing whether college
athletes should be paid has multiple perspectives and facets, and—as a solution
has not been agreed upon—it will continue to be discussed.
References
Buchanan, N. H.
(2013). College athletes, full-ride
scholarships, and anti-intellectualism. Retrieved from
http://verdict.justia.com/2013/12/05/college-athletes-full-ride-scholarships-anti-intellectualism
Dorfman, J.
(2013). Pay college athletes? they’re already paid up to $125,000 per year. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/08/29/pay-college-athletes-theyre-already-paid-up-to-125000year/
Hartnett, T.
(2013). Why college athletes should be
paid. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tyson-hartnett/college-athletes-should-be-paid_b_4133847.html
Deadspin (Creator--Blog). (2013). Highest-paid
public employees [Map], retrieved from
http://deadspin.com/infographic-is-your-states-highest-paid-employee-a-co-489635228
Johnson, D. A.,
& Acquaviva, J. (2012, June 15). Point/counterpoint:
paying college athletes. Retrieved from http://thesportjournal.org/article/pointcounterpoint-paying-college-athletes/
Peale, C. (2013).
Athletics cost colleges, students
millions. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/15/athletics-cost-colleges-students-millions/2814455/
Pells, E., &
Armour, N. (2014). Athletic
scholarships carry more benefits besides a college degree. Retrieved
from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/04/athletic-scholarships-benefits_n_4542613.html
Sander, L.,
Wolverton, B., & Fuller, A. (2011). NCAA grapples with covering cost of
attendance for athletes. Chronicle Of Higher Education, 58(11),
A22.
Should Student
Athletes Be Paid [Survey] (2014). Retrieved from https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/5YLVS8F
USA TODAY. (2014a).
2013 ncaaf coaches salaries.
Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/salaries/ncaaf/coach/
USA TODAY. (2014b).
Ncaa finances. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/
Wong, G. (2014).
College athletes should be careful
what they wish for. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/03/27/scholars-players-and-union-members/college-athletes-should-be-careful-what-they-wish-for
Thanks for sharing this kind of information with us.
ReplyDeleteStudent Athletes