re: Should collegiate athletes receive stipends?

After many years of deliberation and consultation, the debate to pay or not to pay collegiate athletes for their play has reached an all time high. Collegiate athletics impact just about everyone in some form or fashion, whether it be a fan, family member, or the student-athlete themselves. The debate on whether or not student-athletes should be paid for play has become national news in the last couple of years. People have taken sides and continue to argue for their beliefs; however, an answer to this quandary has yet to appear. There are many specific factors among this detailed and elaborate dispute regarding fairness, obstacles, and other binding legal issues. That being said, it all boils down to whether or not student-athletes should receive compensation for their talents.

Many studies have taken place concerning the payment of student-athletes. Nearly every study for each individual perspective preaches the same explanation. Certain studies look briefly into the legal complications for the payment of players. Some articles use specific examples of student-athletes to enhance certain opinions. Other sources use factual evidence from coaches, professors, and even college students to elucidate the perspective on paying student-athletes. Most of the compiled research focusses on the reasons why players should be paid to play, why paying players is unneeded and problematic, and alternatives to paying players for their talents.

Much of the research that was conducted supporting the payment of players discusses factors such as student-athletes not receiving money for personal complications, the motivation to earn scholarship stipend money, and the current lack of organization in money dispersal among all collegiate programs. In Krikor Meshefejian’s article, “Pay to Play: Should College Athletes Be Paid?,” the arguments for the payment of players are factual and relative to the problems most student-athletes face on a day-to-day basis. In Meshefejian’s article, he points out that some student-athletes leave their university early to receive payment in a professional career because of the lack of funding they received in college (17). Meshefejian believes that student-athletes should be paid so they can continue their education, graduate, and then explore a chance at a career in professional sports (17). Many refutations presented in other perspectives involve the argument that student-athletes receive scholarships. Meshefejian reveals that most scholarships do not fully cover tuition, so students are forced to obtain loans (18). However, some student-athletes can not afford loans, which leads schools to provide them with illegal benefits (Meshefejian 18). Many people believe that creating some type of payment for players would eliminate the need for student loans and illegal reimbursements. Raymond G. Schneider conducted an experiment to observe the opinions of college students. Schneider found that the majority of college students believe that student-athletes should receive stipends to reduce illegal benefits and cheating (5). As is evident in student-athletes today, scholarships funds do not always meet the cost of tuition. Meshefejian believes that “[t]he gap between a full scholarship and the cost of attendance should be covered by the academic institution” (20). By implementing Meshefejian’s proposed idea, student-athletes would receive new payments not covered by scholarship, which could eliminate illegal benefits all together. Tom Paliama, Professor of Classics at the University of Texas at Austin, believes that student-athletes should be paid for other circumstantial reasons. Much of Paliama’s opinion on the debate to pay players is based solely on academic issues and early departures among student-athletes. Paliama cites Ramonce Taylor, a star football player for the University of Texas, informing the reader that Taylor left the football team due to academic problems that he had faced earlier in the year (Paliama 34). Many of the academic problems Taylor encountered could have been corrected with Paliama’s belief in “[c]ollege athletes work[ing] for scholarship stipend money” (36). However, that is not the extent of Paliama’s argument to pay college athletes. Paliama also mentions P.J. Tucker, a junior basketball player at the University of Texas, for leaving his university during his spring semester for the NBA Draft (34). Paliama believes that students-athletes who work for and receive money will feel more compelled to stay in school and graduate with a degree (34). In Richard E. Lapchick’s book, New Game Plan For College Sports, representatives from many different institutions were asked a question regarding the most important issues for student-athletes. Damone Jones from Penn State University revealed that most money that supports personal funds comes from privileged families who have the ability to send money to their children; however, not all families are well off enough to have this advantage (Lapchick 274). When asked the same question, Brian O’Leary, from the University of Kentucky, states that while some student-athletes receive money from family, it is not enough to get by, so they are forced to get a job that conflicts with their over-scheduled, athletic lives (Lapchick 274). Lastly, Charece Williams, from North Carolina State University, believes that “it is only fair that student-athletes are compensated for their many sacrifices” (Lapchick 274). Williams also indicates that student-athletes practice for roughly three hours a day, leaving less time for studying and other personal advantages including money for movies or vacations (Lapchick 274). These same predicaments are discussed in Kenneth J. Cooper’s article where two law professors at Michigan State University, Robert and Amy McCormick, are convinced that football and basketball is a job for student-athletes at Division I schools (1). Rodney D. Fort, a professor of economics at Washington State University, believes there is a solution to the lack of funds an underprivileged student-athlete might encounter. Fort is convinced that “paying athletes makes sense and would make the college sports system more efficient in the way it distributes money” (10). Strangely enough, it is evident that the arguments for paying college athletes are almost directly comparable, regarding the lack of personal funding for student-athletes. Most studies show significant strategies to economically compensate student-athletes without drastically changing the NCAA’s definition of the amateur student-athlete.

No. They receive enough as is.