There is no way around it, big time college athletic programs are big business and making millions of dollars each year. These big programs pay big money to bring in big time coaches and athletic directors. They pay big money to build and maintain these colossal stadiums and arenas which they sell out with ease. And they sell jerseys with the numbers of star student athletes only to keep all profits off that players success. All this money being spread around and the athletes aren't getting any more than the same scholarship student athletes got 10 years ago.
With all the scandal of student athletes trying to sell some of their memorabilia to make a couple extra bucks, the debate has raged on whether we should pay student athletes for all the revenue they help the universities athletic departments create. Personally, I think the debate is merited and I see valued opinions to both sides of the argument.
The biggest thing that bugs me is the merchandise sales that have universities making money off of the athletes. For instance, everyone knows that a #16 Michigan jersey that the university is selling right now is a Denard Robinson jersey. It doesn't have his name on the back of it but everyone associates he jersey with him and his success on the football field. The thing that bugs me is that Denard isn't allowed to see a portion of any of the jersey sales with his name on it. So who keeps the money? That's right you guessed it, the athletic department.
Other arguments for the paying student athletes include the bonuses paid to coaches and universities for making big games. If a college football program was to make a BCS bowl they would be rewarded with a multi-million dollar cash payout for playing in the game. The coach would trigger an incentive bonus in his contract for probably at least 1 million dollars and guess who's left in the cold? I'm sure you guessed the student athletes who actually won the games to get to that BCS bowl. Everyone seems to be getting an extra chunk of the money except the kids who are earning it on the field or court.
Conversely, student athletes are given what is called a grant in aid or a scholarship to attend the university, maintain a high level of academic achievement, and participate in all team functions for their specific sport. Players in big money sports receive a full scholarship to earn a degree while they play their sport on campus. Anyone who has paid their own way to attend college can attest to how much they spend each semester. Not only are these students granted a free education but they are relieved of the burden of paying off student loans after graduation. So its hard to argue they should be getting paid to play when they are receiving a 50,000 plus education for free.
My take on everything is that I don't think student athletes should be paid to play their respective sports. I believe that if they need extra money to get through the semester then they should take out a loan like every other college student has to. I also believe that the NCAA should change its stance on amateurism. As it stands now a student athlete is not allowed to make money by doing commercials or appearances because it affords the athletes an advantage over your every day college student. I believe that if Nike or Gatorade or any other company wants to use a student athlete in one of their commercials or other advertising ads that those athletes should be allowed to do that and make some extra money when they have the time. For me it all boils down to that if you are not gonna share the pie with the athletes you should at least afford them the opportunity to make some money on their own.
