Paid to Play? I Say No Way!

Can you imagine going to a college basketball game knowing that the players, students like you, get a big, fat wad of cash just for playing; or worse, sitting on the bench? Neither can I, but that is exactly what people are lobbying for! Listen, historically speaking, it was not until 1850 that intercollegiate sports even began to appear. Before 1850, physical activity was in the form of manual labor, such as moving boulders to clear land or farming. Imagine that: people hauled heavy rocks and learned. Maybe that is a little food for thought next time you complain about your night class. The fact that people are trying to turn college sports, which were once a form of friendly competition, into a business defeats the purpose. College students need to learn the value of a dollar and the benefits of hard work,  and not have money given to them like some sort of allowance. Paying athletes is destructive to this learning experience.

 In 1863, Cornell University's president, William Fletcher King, sent a telegram to officials at the University of Michigan expressing outright anger after discovering his students were meeting with those from Michigan to play a game of football. In his book "The Rise of Football," Frederick Rudolph quotes Cornell's president who said, "I will not permit thirty men to travel four hundred miles merely to agitate a bag of wind." While King may have considered football the equivalent of  "a bag of wind," today, college football is basically its own religion where players are glorified as deities. Clearly, King did not believe intercollegiate athletics should have any prominence. Along these lines, there has been great controversy lately among college athletes and whether they should be paid for the revenues they generate for their schools. If King were around today, he would be outraged by this proposal, and would probably send a very angry telegram to proponents of such a ridiculous idea. I for one agree with him, but not because I do not enjoy a good football game, which I do. Athletes are not an asset for universities; they are students, and it seems this major detail tends to be overlooked.

According to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), most sports do not post revenues above expenses. Basically, most sports do not make schools gain money; they make schools lose money. Perhaps you are thinking that sports such as college football and basketball probably do not apply, right? The tens of thousands of fans that tailgate and paint themselves as if they are preparing for some barbaric ritual are certainly not watching these games for free. Wrong; only 30 percent of Division I football teams in the country generate more revenue than expenses for universities . According to journalist Lisa Horne, this may have something to do with the $42.6 million it costs NCAA football teams to travel for games.  Also, only an astonishing 26 percent of all Division I basketball teams generate more income than expenditures for their universities.  In total, only about 24 athletic programs in the United States are able to generate revenue over expenses for their schools. This means that after the travel, attire, insurance and training expenses are paid, most colleges have not made any money at all. There is no point in "compensating" athletes, since most of them are just generating massive amounts of debt. Just think what that means for you, the average student. If a private college needs more money you can bet your bottom dollar, literally, that they will hike up that tuition. That's right; you are directly affected by that debt.

The NCAA prides itself on the principle of amateurism for student athletes. The word amateur, according to its etymology, is a dabbler or lover of something as opposed to a professional. Therefore, the NCAA aims to preserve the love for athletics, rather than receiving monetary compensation for participating in intercollegiate sports. What needs to be called into question is why students are choosing to play Division I sports in the first place. If it is for the love of the game, then and only then, is the student really an amateur. As former NCAA committee member, Joe Crowley said, "If they profit, they're workers; they're not amateurs." That is the bottom line: student athletes are athletes, not employees of the university.

As I walked around campus today, I took notice of those who are student athletes. They do have privileges such as priority scheduling, increased availability of tutors, university apparel, and even, in some cases, excused absences from class. However, I also observed something else; these student athletes are still students, and many pride themselves in that fact. These students have pride in representing their school, and that matters more than the amount of zeroes ending the numbers on their checks. Like I said before, playing in college should be purely for the love of the game. They should be proud that they are amateurs.