This subject has been one of major debate for some time now, should NCAA athletes be allowed to be monetarily compensated for the work they do and the money they help generate? With the first college playoff and championship games slated to be played soon, the NCAA will be receiving millions of dollars in revenue. According to USA today in 2014 the NCAA received revenue of 989 million! Most of that revenue, 81% to be exact, came from television and marketing rights, while another 11% came from championships (tickets and merchandise sales). That means 92% of the NCAAs revenue (almost $910 million) comes directly as a result of the entertainment that the student athletes provide.

Some have said that the student athletes are being exploited, the writers of South Park would agree. In 2011 the show, which is well known for its satire and social commentary, released an episode in which they likened the NCAA to slave owners. Although this comparison might seem silly or extreme, the situation that some student athletes are faced with is very serious. Although top student athletes, like former UConn basketball player Shabazz Napier, get athletic scholarships, meal plans, and preferential treatment, he has admitted that sometimes he would go to bed starving because he couldn’t afford food. Why someone who has helped their school win a national championship, and generate them millions of dollars, be subject to this? In response to this issue, Molly Block, a student from Texas State University who believes student athletes shouldn’t get paid, wrote this in her school newspaper,

“many college students are broke and deal with these inconveniences on a daily basis. Not being able to afford things is a way of life in college.”

What Molly seems to be forgetting is the amount of time that being a student athlete require from you, so much so that many aren’t able to pick up jobs to help pay for things like regular students do. I don’t think Molly would feel the same way about this issue if she heard the story of walk on Baylor running back Silas Nacita. He was paying for school with academic scholarships but wasn’t able to afford a place to live. A close family friend offered him a place to live and help with living expenses. When the NCAA caught wind of this they ruled him ineligible to play because he violated NCAA rule by accepting these gifts. It’s a shame that the NCAA cares more about making sure student athletes don’t receive compensation, than the well-being of the student athletes. Molly goes on to say

“Additionally, if universities paid college athletes, it would make the disparity between large and small university athletic teams even greater. Larger schools with more revenue such like University of Texas would essentially be able to buy out the best players for their teams, putting smaller universities at a greater disadvantage.”

She makes a good point, but I think that problem can be addressed if the NCAA comes to an agreement to have a standard rate of pay for each school, sport, and athlete. For example each NCAA football player gets $15 an hour for practice, travel and games. With sports that generate less money a different standard pay rate could be adopted that is less, so maybe just minimum wage for athletes who play sports like lacrosse or tennis. These sports might not generate huge sums of revenue but they still require a huge time commitment and skill. If this system was adopted athletes would no longer be subject to exploitation, they could get paid for their extreme time commitment, skill, and the money they help generate, and there would be a standard pay for every school so bigger schools couldn’t use money as an advantage over the smaller ones.

Although a fair compensation system for athletes would be difficult to implement, it would be worth it because these hard working students should not be subject to going to bed starving or being ruled ineligible to play for accepting food and roof over their head if they have none.