By Darren Mcvey
According to Dr. Boyce Watkins of Syracuse University, the NCAA is a “gang of pimps.” This is the name Watkins used for the governing body of collegiate athletics in an interview with “Smart Money” magazine about whether college athletes should be paid for their talents.
“Pay for play” is an increasingly audible debate and especially relevant in light of the risks student athletes take. On the surface it seems that student athletes should be compensated considering the salaries that college coaches and athletic directors make and the apparent profits of athletic departments. But with a closer look, it’s clear that “pay for play” would ruin college sports.
First of all, student athletes are compensated. In return for playing for a large Division I-A program like the University of Louisville, a student athlete receives tuition, equipment, room and board, expert training, and the chance to showcase their talents in hopes of playing sports professionally. The NCAA values a four-year scholarship package at $40,000 just in tuition and room and board alone
But the most glaring misconception in the debate is that schools’ athletic departments are making off with huge sums of cash from the student athlete. According to Matt Hayes of “Sporting News,” the University of Florida’s athletic department has a budget of $44 million. However, the surplus after all expenses are paid, is just $400,000. Supporters of “pay for play” criticize coaches and athletic directors for pocketing extraordinary paychecks from the hard work of the student athletes, but often overlook the significant reinvestment of the money that athletic programs bring in. The total amount that a school and its athletic department spend on each student athlete is substantial.
According to U of L’s Accountants’ Report and Financial Statements of the Athletic Association, basketball and football had operating margins of $2.2 million and $1.2 million, respectively, while all other sports combined had an operating shortfall of $8.1 million in 2005. Even with income from other sources such as support services and gifts, U of L would not be able to pay student athletes as the university currently operates.
The ramifications of “pay for play” would be felt on the field and in the classroom as well. Paying athletes would result in a considerable decrease in competition between schools. The competitive divide between schools like Texas, with its budget of $82 million, and up-and-comers like U of L with a budget of $41 million, would expand and leave the NCAA divided between the haves and the have-nots. Paying student athletes would also open the door to agents and unions representing athletes and possibly lead to walk-outs, strikes, and an overall transformation of the atmosphere of college sports to one that’s indistinguishable from professional sports. The NCAA would become a minor league.
One of the most appealing arguments for “pay for play” is that minority and underprivileged youths are exploited by the present system. Those making such an argument should consider the exploitation that would occur if these minority and underprivileged young men and women were thrown into the world of professional sports without a college education or training. Some agents would not hesitate to take advantage of business ignorant athletes, much like what happens in the music industry.
Student athletes are students who play sports, not athletes who have classes. If collegiate sports are to remain a breeding ground for educated future athletes, “pay for play” cannot be an option.
