Should College Football Players Be Paid? - George

College football player should not get paid, but college-age football players should.

NCAA football wants things to keep going as they are. The money being made from college football is at an all time high, and getting higher. The issue of paying players is a hot topic right now because NCAA football’s lucrative success has doomed them by demonstrating that there is a substantial market for 18-22 year old football entertainment. There is no going forward as things have always been. A law suit will eventually wear a hole in the walls of arbitrary amateurism laws and antitrust exemptions. A free market league will eventually exist.  The question is, will it be run by the NCAA.

The two choices before the NCAA will be to A) keep going after the money by attempting to run the quasi-free market league, or B) risk losing the big money by letting the blue chip talent go to a free market league unaffiliated with colleges.  

It is clear that they will eventually morph into option A (unless a new league beats them to it and forces them to option B).  There is too much money involved for them to risk the unknown of B.  But option A is shortsighted. Individual schools will suffer. And the game will suffer. This road will further polarize the football landscape with haves and have-nots. Many schools will shut down their football programs. The few schools that have a piece of the pie will look no different than a lesser version of the NFL. Yikes!

I think option B is the better strategy. The quality of college football can and will survive and thrive on the 3 star talent they can buy with their scholarships. We see the powers-that-be in college basketball scrambling to keep free market athletics from happening (with their one-and-done rulings). But we also see that even with the mass defection of talented freshman to the NBA college basketball remains very popular, perhaps more popular than ever (and a case can be made that forcing kids to play a year of college basketball is a bad thing for the game). The same will be true for football. We may even see a better overall product without the top recruits.

But I not only think that B is a better option, I think it will eventually be the only option for true college football. If universities remain in the “business” of football (paying for play) it will also mean that they remain committed to the current school business model. And the school business model, as it stands, is coming to an end. The education bubble has burst.  A college degree is not worth the investment, not even close (a big reason college football players are looking to get paid is because of inflation on their current payroll dollar - the education. No one is talking about this). Universities have shot themselves in the foot by watering down their product to maximize their enrollees and streamline their athletic recruiting. If schools don’t change their model they will fail as universities and take their football programs with them. But if they do change their model and make their education valuable again, then they won’t be able to exploit the best football talent. The only way forward is to reform their schools and return to the older version of compensating athletes - with an education that will be valuable to them.

The NCAA will feel that the top option will preserve what they have.  And they will think that is where the money is (and it will be in the short term). The landscape of college football has been shifting in that direction for years. But the best thing for colleges and the college football product is to stay in the football game but get out of the business of football.  There will still plenty cash to be made.  Let the market exist. Let kids earn what they are worth. Players should be paid, but not by schools, not if we want to keep a semblance of the college football that we love.

Should College Football Players get paid? –Matt

Much commotion has been made recently regarding if college football players (or student athletes in general) should be compensated for their play since their sports generate substantial revenue for the Universities.  There is a lot of merit in this reasoning.  Especially when you consider the health risk associated with playing sports.  One wrong move and the player could be paralyzed or killed. 

On the other hand they are given an opportunity for an education and room and board for free if they play a sport at a high level.

It’s a cost benefit decision for the athlete and their families.  Is free education worth the risk of playing a certain sport?

What clouds this simple decision is life after college.  Student athletes in the big 3 sports (Football, Basketball and Baseball) all are playing in college for the chance to play professional.  Everyone is gunning to be in the 2% that make the jump from college to professional.  Considering base pay in the NFL is over $300,000 per year it would make sense to strive to play at that level.  If you are really good coming out of college isn’t not uncommon to have a multi million dollar contract waiting.  The exposure generated by playing at the collegiate level often dictates the amount of the professional contract.  The risk of playing college ball is worth it for many student athletes. 

However, for the rest of the 98%, playing at the collegiate level represents the end of the road.  There is no big payout, no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.  It would make complete sense to draw the conclusion that these players, where this is the end of their sporting lives, should be compensated for their play, especially considering the amount of money they generated for the University.

Suppose for a moment there were no professional sports, that the highest level was played on the college level.  There was no big payout waiting for the select few players and everyone played for the love of the game and free tuition.  If this was the case I doubt we would hear a cry for player compensation.  The deal would be simple; play for Whatsamatta U and get a free education.  If you don’t want to risk your safety you simple don’t play.  There are no hedging bets; it is all very cut and dry.  But when you add the lottery of a professional contract to the equation many cost/benefit decisions are skewed. 

In essence the Universities are capitalizing on this skewed decision.  They are getting a very high level of play based on the hope of some 3^rd party contract.  They are simply in the right place at the right time.  It is easy to argue that the College’s are taking advantage of the student, but that isn’t entirely fair.  College’s are holding up their end of the agreement by providing access to educational opportunities (if the player is on a scholarship) in exchange for performance on the field.  They are also indirectly (or directly) providing the players with the exposure to maximize their potential at no cost to the student-athlete. 

Based on this student athletes (regardless of the sport) should not be paid as their contract is an ‘in kind’ contract and not a financial one.  However, I think Universities should be held to a much higher standard when it comes to the academics of the athletes.  Putting a much greater emphasis on academics and ensuring that athlete meet or exceed normal standards should be the norm.  In theory, athletes should be the best performing students as the college has much more invested in them than fee paying students.