I am a high school athlete but have no plans to play a college sport. My college athletic participation will be as a supportive fan. However, I do have friends who are committed to colleges for sports. One friend is attending Pepperdine for baseball, another committed to Michigan for football, and one female friend is going to Yale for soccer. It is their stories and the stories of other college athletes that inspire me to explore the continued debate on whether college athletes should be paid. It is anything but a cut-and-dry issue. There are so many shades of gray in this debate: education vs exploitation, football vs field hockey, male vs female, and so many more factors to weigh. I hope to shed light on both sides of the topic and in the end, I would love to hear from Teen Ink readers about their opinions. 

Historically, college athletes were not paid. They were considered amateurs and not professionals, so there was no financial compensation; instead, their education was their compensation (Bokat-Lindell). The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) governs college sports and did not want to pay college athletes because it would undermine the main goal of a college or university, which is education. College athletes can receive financial support for their education as well as room/board and books. Scholarships can range from $18,000 to $200,000 over four years. The television documentary, The Fab Five, is about the starters on the University of Michigan basketball team in 1991 who were known across the country as the best players in the league. Their star Chris Webber, who ended up being a first pick of the NBA draft, was deciding whether he should return to the University of Michigan for another year of school or go professional. During one game, Webber turned to the students at the Michigan stadium and saw his last name on the jerseys of almost every person in the crowd (ESPN). They were chanting his name like he was a rock star. Later that night, he realized that he could not even go into a gas station to buy a candy bar since he had no money. Remember that student-athletes are not employees of the school – they are students first and athletes second. They can not be salaried. The irony is that the schools' sports programs can make millions off of these students. However, in recent years, the NCAA has reversed its policy, and now states are enacting new laws which allow student-athletes to make money off of their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL). 

To put the men’s college sports programs in perspective, Bill Self of the University of Kansas earned over 10 million dollars in 2021 (Hannable). The Alabama football coach Nick Saban makes 11.7 million a year (Zucker). The NCAA sells the rights to broadcast a college basketball tournament, March Madness, every year on television generating a billion dollars a year (Piccioto). But, how much will the players get? Previously, nothing financially, but they do get to attend college. It is documented that colleges make millions of dollars selling merchandise with the names of their players, tickets to games which also include concessions, as well as the aforementioned broadcast rights. But not one of the students made a penny (Edelman). In 2019, California Governor Newsom signed a law allowing college athletes in California to enter into endorsement deals with brands. This gives the student-athletes forms of compensation and control over their own image. Agreeing with California law is a legendary basketball star and NBA Hall of Famer, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who feels wholeheartedly that these athletes should be paid; otherwise, they are being exploited for their talents (Chiari). NIL has benefited the athletes in more than just compensation. More student-athletes are staying in school and completing their education with the added financial stability. The new revenue to these athletes is also making them more business savvy and provides valuable experiences on managing their brand. Some athletes are donating portions of their NIL profits to charities and local sports initiatives (Bilas).  

Now, on the flip side, there are those who believe that paying athletes is not just or equitable. Despite the fact that coaches make millions a year and sports stores sell jerseys and other merchandise with college athletes' names, some believe student-athletes still should not be paid. The first point is that many receive full scholarships as their payment. An education can be considered the highest form of payment for a young person. If a person does not go professional, then one needs to graduate with skills to get a job, and college is supposed to provide that foundation. Moreover, secondary sports will suffer – meaning the sports that do not generate money or have an audience will just fall by the wayside, with the colleges only spending and promoting the money-earning sports. Third, determining the amount of compensation would be messy and not equal among players. For instance, should the team or the individual get the compensation? Or does an athlete get more if they score? Is it equal per player or discretionary based on skill? According to the New York Times Magazine, approximately 520,000 students currently compete in college sports. However, only 1,000 of them are making any money (Schoenfeld 25).  NIL profiting comes with its own set of challenges. Different states are implementing different rules around NIL, creating confusion. NIL opportunities have started to cross the boundaries of recruiting. Collectives are being assembled that pool money together to support certain college athletic programs, yet in some cases it goes directly to the student-athlete. Collectives are not associated with universities. Collectives are powerful in getting the NIL opportunities to the athletes so they commit to the school and stay there (Bilas). 

Countering Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's argument is USA Today sports writer Christine Brennan who brings up a valuable point on why college athletes should not be paid: Title IX. Title IX was signed by President Nixon in the 1970s prohibiting sex-based discrimination in any school or educational program that receives government money, including college sports. Every university receives government funding. If the male basketball stars were to receive compensation, then the female softball players would also...equally? How can a university afford that? Does the female softball team generate income for the school equal to that of the school's male basketball team? Brennan believes, “If we're going to start paying the football players, we have to pay the field hockey players, and we have to pay the men and women swimmers, and we have to pay the lacrosse players, softball players, baseball players...There is no doubt in my mind that the moment we start to just pay football players and men's basketball players you would have 12 lawsuits the first day and you'd have 12 the next day. And every school would be sued” (Chiari). Despite the presence of Title IX, Abdul-Jabbar believes that “those who are primarily responsible for generating money should be the beneficiaries” (Chiari).

The Supreme Court decision in 2021 ended restrictions on what athletes could earn on their name, image, and likeness. College student-athletes now have opportunities for profit. Yet, the debate on paying these athletes and the regulations surrounding it continues.