# Should student athletes be paid? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 5, 2015, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922 "2015-04-05T22:48:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922/81 "2015-04-07T13:01:18Z")
> [@theR](#): > > Aren’t they already treated like employees? Arguably, but codofiying that status into law would be a mistake in my opinion. > [@theR](#): > > The sports that don’t bring in money should still pay the athletes if they’re governed by the NCAA. Why? Playing sports in general is not a virtue or necessity. There is no reason a tennis player should be paid when s/he brings in virtually no money to the university and is already compensated in the form of an free education far beyond their worth. People shouldn’t be paid just because they play sports. They should be paid because the product of the work is being leveraged to make money they are not allowed to be compensated for. > [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Here is the problem, you are supposing that the NCAA works on behalf of the players. They don’t. Sorry, that sentence is unclear. I am supposing that universities in general work on behalf of their players. > [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > The universities have no special exemption for collusion to fix compensations; it’s simply a power they have assumed for themselves in the light of no organized resistance and their monopoly position. That power is rightfully under attack now. Well the NCAA is ostensibly fixing compensation, not the universities. That said, I don’t think they will lose that right any time soon. > [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > FWIW, I don’t think schools should pay players. I just think they should be allowed to. Schools should actually return to their core mission and reduce the time demands on students who participate in sports. But if Booster Bob (remember him from the O’Bannon thread?) wants to toss 50 Gs at Superstud QB so he’ll happily stay and play at State U, then nobody should be allowed to interfere, either. That’s a private transaction outside the purview of a university athletic program, competitive balance be damned. “Competitive balance” is just an excuse to keep the money coming in and the desire for it shouldn’t trump the athletes’ individual commercial rights. But keeping the money rolling in includes a lot of money that goes towards general funds too. That said, I think another issue is that allowing unlimited and undocumented compensation can easily be used to obscure outright bribery for point shaving and tanking. Now you can argue people shouldn’t be gambling on sports anyway, but the reality is that when you can/could win a billion dollar with a perfect NCAA bracket, paying players in a non transparent fashion is problematic to say the least. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922/82 "2015-04-07T13:21:52Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Sorry, that sentence is unclear. I am supposing that universities in general work on behalf of their players. How does that make more sense? The NCAA and the member universities work together for their own benefit, they are Management. Nobody who works for the players is in a position to veto any of the rules that the NCAA proposes. In a union, the union leaders (hired and paid by the players to act on their behalf) negotiate with Management regarding the terms, and the players themselves vote to adopt or reject those terms. Nothing remotely resembling this exists in College. The NCAA and Universities are basically the League and Ownership. The League works for the owners, and sets up the rules to keep things “fair” between the owners, but neither of them work for the players at all. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922/83 "2015-04-07T13:35:20Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > How does that make more sense? > > The NCAA and the member universities work together for their own benefit, they are Management. Nobody who works for the players is in a position to veto any of the rules that the NCAA proposes. > > In a union, the union leaders (hired and paid by the players to act on their behalf) negotiate with Management regarding the terms, and the players themselves vote to adopt or reject those terms. > > Nothing remotely resembling this exists in College. The NCAA and Universities are basically the League and Ownership. The League works for the owners, and sets up the rules to keep things “fair” between the owners, but neither of them work for the players at all. You are acting as if the union benefits all players. A compulsory union is in effect management from an individual player perspective. Do you think Lebron James wants a max salary? Of course not. He doesn’t really have a choice in the matter. I would count on Kentucky and John Calipari for example to defend their players almost as much as I would expect the union to defend their players. How many times do you see colleges shield athletes from crimes and other egregious violations of the rules? The fact is the do work in part for athletes in many aspects. Now you could argue that the players collectively have more power in pro sports via their union than the players in college sports, but that is largely speculative in many aspects. If the day before the NCAA final game, the players all refused to play unless they were paid $5k a piece or got lifetime insurance coverage, what do you think would happen? Union and protests are only as good as the solidarity of the work force. In both cases, the efficacy of their advocacy is based on that rather than their formal structure. Regardless, that has nothing to do with whether college players should be paid, or whether a pay cap is legal or wise. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922/84 "2015-04-07T14:22:50Z")
Speaking of unrelated issues, point-shaving concerns are one. Fears of point-shaving are an inherent part of sports, regardless of the compensation of the participants. Ne’er-do-wells seeking to influence game outcomes will always be with us and both pro and “amateur” sports are constantly policing this aspect. It’s like saying that if we just keep marijuana illegal, then no one will smoke marijuana. If the schools sometimes work in the best interests of the players, then it’s mostly because it’s in their best interests, too. Leaning on Jameis Winston’s accuser and deflecting police investigation means that Jameis could keep throwing touchdown passes for the Seminoles, which was very much in Jimbo Fisher’s interest. Too bad it sucks for any other student who might have been assaulted by a football player (disclaimer, no judgment rendered here on the Winston case, example only). The players are without viable representation and it’s pretty unrealistic that (mostly) poor young men, barely of a majority age, could put together an advocacy group without a great deal of help. Plus, they would not be specially protected from retribution from their schools for those activities (not everyone is as open minded as Northwestern) and, in some states, it’s not even legal for them to unionize. Shame on the Michigan legislature, btw, for their recent bills making student-athlete unions illegal. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922/85 "2015-04-07T15:47:33Z")
> [@Doyle](#): > > I’d love to see them paid, but I’m still yet to see a workable plan. > > Winners: > > Star players > Big schools > > Losers: > > Title IX > Small schools > Lesser players > > I so tire of ill informed idiots making blanket statements that college athletes have to be paid without coming up with a workable plan. If it happens, more people are going to get fucked than receive the perks. As I understand it, not every school has a football program or lacross or basketball. My college was small, we didn’t have a football field. If it means that only football is part of the curriculum in a handful of schools, so what? It would be little difference than what it is now. I don’t see Title IX as a loser. The schools where some big sports program pays for everything else would probably still be able to afford it all sports. Smaller schools can choose between offering a few sports programs, or going all academic. Neither of these would hurt Title IX specifically. If girls want to join sports, they can apply to some of the few schools that offer their particular sport. I don’t see this as affecting just girls because schools would be forced to have a boys version too. Small schools wouldn’t lose out on much if they switched to straight academics. Why would a small college need a football or basketball program anyways? The status quo of them stealing money from players is wrong, so if its a choice between not paying players and having a sports program, or paying them and not being able to afford one, I’d say the latter is the more worthy outcome. These small schools are only losers in the sense that they don’t get to steal from players anymore. I’d say that their administration are losers but the school itself wins by not having such an odious money making scheme How do you figure lesser players are losers in this format? They’re already not getting paid, so paying them anything is a step up. And since they’re not getting paid, if a school’s program folds and they don’t get a chance to play, they’re still at their status quo and have lost nothing. ---
**Author:** ![theR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@theR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theR)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922/86 "2015-04-07T16:42:40Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Why? Playing sports in general is not a virtue or necessity. There is no reason a tennis player should be paid when s/he brings in virtually no money to the university and is already compensated in the form of an free education far beyond their worth. People shouldn’t be paid just because they play sports. They should be paid because the product of the work is being leveraged to make money they are not allowed to be compensated for. Because they’re in the same position as big time sports stars in football and basketball. They go to school full time and work (as athletes) almost full time. They don’t have time for jobs. If the schools want to have sports, all the athletes should be paid if they are required to put in so much time and effort that it makes holding a job unreasonable on top of the NCAA forbidding them from accepting gifts/payments. If the NCAA is going to govern them and has rules that make it difficult for them to get by, they should be paid to alleviate the difficulties. As someone said, it’s akin to paying TAs and grad students. The NCAA rules are really stringent and apply to all, no matter how obscure the sport. Giving athletes a stipend for their numerous hours dedicated to promoting the university seems perfectly reasonable as the NCAA and the schools leverage the athletes for money and notoriety. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922/87 "2015-04-07T18:09:04Z")
> [@theR](#): > > Because they’re in the same position as big time sports stars in football and basketball. They go to school full time and work (as athletes) almost full time. They don’t have time for jobs. If the schools want to have sports, all the athletes should be paid if they are required to put in so much time and effort that it makes holding a job unreasonable on top of the NCAA forbidding them from accepting gifts/payments. If the NCAA is going to govern them and has rules that make it difficult for them to get by, they should be paid to alleviate the difficulties. > > As someone said, it’s akin to paying TAs and grad students. The NCAA rules are really stringent and apply to all, no matter how obscure the sport. Giving athletes a stipend for their numerous hours dedicated to promoting the university seems perfectly reasonable as the NCAA and the schools leverage the athletes for money and notoriety. Who cares about athletes of money losing sports? They are not at all in the same position. Again, playing sports is a choice, not a virtue. The issue is that universities are making money off primarily football and basketball players. That’s why those particular people should be paid. Not because the work hard and have little free time, but because they are earning tons of money for other people without just compensation. I agree that if the school themselves have to pay athletes, they would likely have to pay everyone. That’s why I would just life the cap of money that could be earned rather than allow schools to pay wages. This way, a booster can pay a deserving player rather than a school having to divert even more resources to money losing sports and athletes. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922/88 "2015-04-07T18:39:42Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Why? Playing sports in general is not a virtue or necessity. There is no reason a tennis player should be paid when s/he brings in virtually no money to the university and is already compensated in the form of an free education far beyond their worth. People shouldn’t be paid just because they play sports. They should be paid because the product of the work is being leveraged to make money they are not allowed to be compensated for. Do scholarships for, let’s say, chemistry or math, require a similar return on investment? In the case of a tennis player or someone who doesn’t rake in the dough for the university, I’m all for paying them through the scholarship. I don’t think biology majors on scholarship is asked to donate part of their future potential earnings to a school, so the school is essentially paying them to be there. But for big programs like football or basketball, the value is skewed the other way. Universities and the NCAA are making billions off the students. Because there is value in what they do, because the schools make much more than what they give out, it is stealing. I believe that schools give scholarships and educations to students and the value of that is akin to a paid salary. However, I do NOT agree that the students are being fairly compensated for their efforts and I do not believe that rules barring competition should exist. For a big division one football program, the students should be given the scholarship AND money to play for the school since the school gains so much from them. And eliminate rules like the O’Bannon lawsuit seeks to redress where students cannot profit from their own images. Let the likes of Marcus Mariotta sell his autographs for money, or let agents pay for his car. If Oregon wants to keep him, they’ll offer 2 cars and $500000 in cash. The value of an Oregon education does not make up for what he’s losing out in the free market and its a joke for the NCAA to claim that they are being paid enough in scholarships already. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922/89 "2015-04-07T18:57:01Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Do scholarships for, let’s say, chemistry or math, require a similar return on investment? It’s not about ROI, it’s about not compensating student athletes who are already over compensated. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > But for big programs like football or basketball, the value is skewed the other way. Universities and the NCAA are making billions off the students. Because there is value in what they do, because the schools make much more than what they give out, it is stealing. I am not sure we are in disagreement beyond who should actually pay. Having the school pay will most likely mean treating students as employees, taxing their wages and compensation (eg. scholarships), making subject to all sorts of arcane work laws and statutes, and paying people like Jameis Winston the same paltry amount of money as a third string lacrosse player. That system doesn’t really the problem you correctly identified. To fix the problem of star athletes being exploited, just life the cap on them earning money to a much higher amount like 100k. Outside funds can be obtained or given to students. People like Mariotta can sell their autographs if they want in order to earn that money, or they can just ask the school to find some booster to give it to them. Other less deserving athletes will get nothing beyond what they can earn in a real job. Either way, this side steps the issue and addresses the problem as it currently exists while also ensuring competitive balance. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > I believe that schools give scholarships and educations to students and the value of that is akin to a paid salary. However, I do NOT agree that the students are being fairly compensated for their efforts and I do not believe that rules barring competition should exist. For a big division one football program, the students should be given the scholarship AND money to play for the school since the school gains so much from them. And eliminate rules like the O’Bannon lawsuit seeks to redress where students cannot profit from their own images. Let the likes of Marcus Mariotta sell his autographs for money, or let agents pay for his car. If Oregon wants to keep him, they’ll offer 2 cars and $500000 in cash. The value of an Oregon education does not make up for what he’s losing out in the free market and its a joke for the NCAA to claim that they are being paid enough in scholarships already. Generally agreed. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922/90 "2015-04-07T19:02:02Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Truth: College Sports are Advertising, and nobody expects advertising to make money directly. > > Duke’s athletic program is in the red, net, but that spending gives them weeks of front page, national TV and radio advertising that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to actually purchase. Thousands of students every year add Duke to their list of schools as a direct result of Duke’s athletic program. Duke gets more students, can charge higher tuition, and gets more alumni donations as a direct result of Sports. > > To say that the college subsidizes the sports team ignores the huge impact of sports on non-sports revenue. From the article: > [@](#): > > Most studies find no link between winning teams and measures of institutional success like number and quality of applications, fundraising dollars, or state appropriations. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > But for big programs like football or basketball, the value is skewed the other way. Universities and the NCAA are making billions off the students. Because there is value in what they do, because the schools make much more than what they give out, it is stealing. Did you read the linked article? Only eight public universities break even or make any profit. The rest are heavily subsidized by their schools. > [@](#): > > Even with bowl-game revenues and television contracts, however, public institutions in those conferences provided an average of $5.9 million to athletics in fiscal 2009, including $2.4 million in direct general-fund support and another $2.4 million in student fees. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922/91 "2015-04-07T21:27:16Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > As soon as colleges start paying football players, you probably have to pay golfers, field hockey players, and a whole bunch of people that generally cannot make a valid case that they deserve payment at all. I don’t think you have to pay all players. One system could be that the NCAA designates two types of athletes, “student-athlete” (aka amateur) and something like “athlete representative” (someone who represents the school, aka pro). At the beginning of the sports year every athlete declares what type they are. SA’s keep their scholarships and must keep some sort of GPA to continue as an SA. Pro players lose their scholarship and don’t attend class but they are allowed to make any money they want. If boosters want to pay the star QB $40k/year to play for the U then fine. If the player can make money appearing at sports shows, great. This allows golfers, field hockey players, etc. to continue as they had before (because they probably won’t declare themselves pro) but also allows players in the money sports to get paid. > [@brickbacon](#): > > Treating athletes as employees will likely cause more problems than it solves. Employees have to pay taxes, can be fired at any time, **are largely anathema to the concept of amateur athletics.** (My emphasis.) I think this is the sticking point for those who think the players shouldn’t get paid (it certainly was for me). We’d like to keep the ideal of amateur athletics and the student athlete; once we allow players to get paid we lose that forever. The problem is that there’s too much money involved and it’s already lost. The only thing “amateur” about the big-money sports programs is the draconian rules that prevent the players (aka the workers) from getting a piece of the pie. The players practice like it’s a full-time job, they rarely get the benefit of a full education, and the coaches/administration (aka the management) certainly get paid like pros. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922/92 "2015-04-08T01:38:40Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > I don’t think you have to pay all players. I think they would. Title IX considerations might require it: Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics: > [@](#): > > Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play; > > Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and > > Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes. I think that could be interpreted to mean that universities cannot pay male basketball players and football players, but not women athletes. > [@Deeg](#): > > One system could be that the NCAA designates two types of athletes, “student-athlete” (aka amateur) and something like “athlete representative” (someone who represents the school, aka pro). At the beginning of the sports year every athlete declares what type they are. SA’s keep their scholarships and must keep some sort of GPA to continue as an SA. Pro players lose their scholarship and don’t attend class but they are allowed to make any money they want. If boosters want to pay the star QB $40k/year to play for the U then fine. If the player can make money appearing at sports shows, great. I think that system complicates things unnecessarily. Further, you are assuming people have perfect clarity in terms of their ability to attract money and “sponsorship”. More importantly though, I would hope all students affiliated with a university would be there to attend classes and progress towards a degree. > [@Deeg](#): > > The problem is that there’s too much money involved and it’s already lost. The only thing “amateur” about the big-money sports programs is the draconian rules that prevent the players (aka the workers) from getting a piece of the pie. The players practice like it’s a full-time job, they rarely get the benefit of a full education, and the coaches/administration (aka the management) certainly get paid like pros. So let the get “jobs” that can pay them up to $100k or so. It’s a simple rule change that fixes the primary issue, and allows the rare non football/basketball player to make money if they are marketable enough. ---
**Author:** ![Doyle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doyle/32/439_2.png) [@Doyle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doyle)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922/93 "2015-04-08T15:18:12Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > As I understand it, not every school has a football program or lacross or basketball. My college was small, we didn’t have a football field. If it means that only football is part of the curriculum in a handful of schools, so what? It would be little difference than what it is now. > > I don’t see Title IX as a loser. The schools where some big sports program pays for everything else would probably still be able to afford it all sports. Smaller schools can choose between offering a few sports programs, or going all academic. Neither of these would hurt Title IX specifically. If girls want to join sports, they can apply to some of the few schools that offer their particular sport. I don’t see this as affecting just girls because schools would be forced to have a boys version too. > > Small schools wouldn’t lose out on much if they switched to straight academics. Why would a small college need a football or basketball program anyways? The status quo of them stealing money from players is wrong, so if its a choice between not paying players and having a sports program, or paying them and not being able to afford one, I’d say the latter is the more worthy outcome. These small schools are only losers in the sense that they don’t get to steal from players anymore. I’d say that their administration are losers but the school itself wins by not having such an odious money making scheme > > How do you figure lesser players are losers in this format? They’re already not getting paid, so paying them anything is a step up. And since they’re not getting paid, if a school’s program folds and they don’t get a chance to play, they’re still at their status quo and have lost nothing. Title IX - If you pay one sport, your’re going to have to pay them all. Title IX is what is going to gum up the works for paying student athletes. Tell the female golfer she’s not worth the same as the star running back on the football team. We know it’s true, but that’s not the world we live in. You’re very point that smaller schools should switch to straight academics makes my point that this would hurt the lesser players. UAB is dropping football completely next year. Imagine the burden of having to pay athletes. I would imagine half the D1 schools would be dropping football. Fewer schools playing football, fewer scholarships. I went to LSU, which is a school that pays its own way and for all the other sports there and then still has money to send over to the academic side. LSU is just one of a handful of schools that can do this. But almost every other college in Louisiana would probably have to give up football. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922/94 "2015-04-08T15:27:06Z")
Random thought - if you have to “work” 20 hours per week to be on the team, and then you have to take X hours of class which require Y hours of studying to earn a passing grade - you are going to be well past the 40 hours per week standard. Does the school have to pay overtime, or will the athletes be considered “exempt” staffers? Will they pay social security tax on their scholarship and other earnings? If you play in an at-will employment state, can you be fired? Employment law is already interesting enough, after all. Personally - don’t pay them. Instead, allow them to profit from their image (endorsements, autographs, jersey sales with their name, etc.). ---
**Author:** ![Doyle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doyle/32/439_2.png) [@Doyle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doyle)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922/95 "2015-04-08T16:27:28Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > Personally - don’t pay them. Instead, allow them to profit from their image (endorsements, autographs, jersey sales with their name, etc.). This about the only direction it might be able to go. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2015, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922/96 "2015-04-09T20:43:06Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Why not? Most college sports programs are nothing more than farm clubs for the pros; why not have the pros subsidize them? But the NFL is a non-profit. Where will they get the money? ---
**Author:** ![GargoyleWB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gargoylewb/32/199_2.png) [@GargoyleWB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GargoyleWB)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2015, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922/97 "2015-04-10T18:38:57Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Well you open up a can of worms if you start paying them. Suddenly they are employees. There’s a lot of legislationthat would suddenly have to be enforced… Not sure why this would be hard. I had a student job in the university libraries while going to school, and was simultaneously a student and a state employee as a result. The system already exists, shelving a book vs bouncing a ball shouldn’t make a difference. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2015, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922/98 "2015-04-10T19:52:10Z")
None of this is hard. None of this is complicated. The NCAA rulebook is hard and complicated. Maintaining an unfair and possibly illegal system is hard and complicated. The proposed changes are routine business transactions that colleges deal with every day. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2015, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922/99 "2015-04-23T23:43:47Z")
UPDATE: Schooled: The Price of College Sports (documentary) I watched a documentary about this topic on Netflix streaming. Basically, if I remember correctly two different athletes from two different schools laid out their typical day when Football was in season: 6AM-9AM - Weight Room 10AM - 1PM Academic classes 2PM - 6PM Team meetings\* and practice 7PM - 10PM Study Hall 11PM - bedtime \*reviewing videos of games, going over playbooks, feedback from assistant coaches, etc Total Hours a day as an Athlete - 7 Total Hours a day as a Student - 6 Total Hours a day of free time\* - 3 Total Hours a week as an Athlete - 35 (not including game day) \*this three hours includes eating meals and commuting back and forth around campus to various activities So it seems to me as if they defiantly have a full time job!!! I change my position and hereby say they need to be paid and keep their scholarship as well (injured players often loose scholarships). Basically these guys are getting screwed over academically as well because the actual education provided to them is substandard to what a normal student receives. ---
**Author:** ![sciurophobic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sciurophobic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciurophobic)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922/100 "2015-04-24T17:27:42Z")
> [@GargoyleWB](#): > > Not sure why this would be hard. I had a student job in the university libraries while going to school, and was simultaneously a student and a state employee as a result. The system already exists, shelving a book vs bouncing a ball shouldn’t make a difference. And the two should be paid the same. (Yes I see the argument that the athletes should be paid more given how much money the school makes off of them, I just don’t think they need to be paid more than any other student with an on campus job) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-student-athletes-be-paid/716922.md?page=6)