Paying Student Atheletes?

From the 1950's up until the present, college sports have become an increasingly more lucrative industry. They gross millions and millions of dollars, and add prestige to their school. In 2006, according to USA Today, the average salary paid to a basketball coach in the NCAA was $800,000. In other conferences, namely the Atlantic Coast, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pacific-10 and Southeastern, the average salary increases to $1.2 million. Football coaches are paid less, but not by a great margin. (Wieberg 1) With coaches being paid this much, one might assume the players are being paid somewhere close to that. Long story short, they are not, but their compensation certainly raises a few questions, both from legal and ethical standpoints.

A top-performing athlete in a Division 1 school is essential to the team's success, and equally as important to the school's financial success. An athlete like this is certainly a good investment to a school, and he is compensated as such. The athlete may receive a full scholarship and housing, which over four years in a private school would equal more than $200,000. This is more than most people's salaries, even when divided over the four years to come out to about $60,000 a year. Does a scholarship for athletic performance constitute employment, or is it simply an integral part of the educational institution? Should athletes be held to as strict a code of conduct as employees would be?

In a series of interviews, I asked many Division 1 athletes these questions, and they all agreed that scholarships do not constitute employment. They all referred to them as amateurs, which by definition means not being paid. Jim Cozza responded "I think that statement [The NCAA considers athletes to be amateur participants in the sporting area, rather than the professional participants] is completely correct because we can't be paid." He then explains exactly what a scholarship is: "Scholarships are rewards for hard work your whole life and an incentive to attend a university. Amateurs aren't allowed to be paid in any sport and that's just something we accept as correct." This acceptance is somewhat humble, and shared by another interviewee, Kayla Kruper. "I'm considered a student before anything else, and playing ball is not my job, it's something I continue to do because I love the game, it's my hobby if you will."

The students were also asked if they believed athletes had any obligations out of school, as an employee would. They also agreed that this was the case, although anyone, regardless of scholarship, has a duty to represent a good image to the public. The reasoning behind this is that "if I had a top industry job, what I do outside of work reflects on that company. Therefore, athletes must make a good name for the school they represent." It was summed up best by Cozza, who stated "Out of school, just don't be stupid and don't get arrested really...everyone represents the school but athletes represent more than that." With athletes held in such high regard, this makes great sense.

With such great input from the student athletes from Division 1 schools, I decided to look for an adult perspective and made my final interview one with Nancy Lyons, a compliance director from B.U. I asked her about her views concerning athletes at this level, their responsibilities to the school given their scholarship status, and whether their relationship constitutes a working management-labor agreement. She had this to say: "I do not believe this relationship constitutes a working management-labor agreement. An athletic scholarship or membership on an athletic team is a privilege and not an entitlement, and certain standards of behavior are expected in order to retain that status and receive the benefit of an education financed by the institution." This is an interesting point, as she is saying that students are not employed because employment is an entitlement (in most cases) through contract.

She also stated that a scholarship does not constitute employment, because "A member of a team is a member "at will" to the extent that it is by choice that they choose to participate and accept financial aid as a benefit of that participation. If the student does not abide by the regulations or meet the expectations of that organization as a member in good standing, they lose that privilege." In regards to being a member of a team "at will," this makes perfect sense, but employees are usually "at will" too. The line between employment and compensation is a blurry one, especially when dealing with opinions. She is saying that student athletes are not employees, but then assigning qualities of employment to their situation.

From a legal perspective, the line is somewhat clearer. Scholarships are not taxable, which means they are not technically income. Also, as interviewee Kelly Engman states: "I don't think that having a scholarship does constitute being an employee. If having a scholarship is the only qualification to be considered an employee, people on academic scholarship would also be employees." Since academic scholarships are used to draw in academic talent for schools and are not criticized as employment, athletic scholarships should be treated the same. The greater commitments for athletics, such as early practices, weight sessions, and extreme dedication are representative of athletics, not of employment.

The NCAA has its own restrictions, which writer Andrew Zimbalist sarcastically notes exist "in the virtuous name of preserving athletics' subservience to the educational mission and amateurism in intercollegiate sports" (Zimbalist 215). The prohibition of "pay-for-play" is the first of such rules. Despite this, he points out that many temptations, from lavish treatments to large sums of cash, are held in front of top prospects. Walter Byers, a former executive director of the NCAA called collegiate amateurism "economic camouflage for monopoly practice" (Zimbalist 216). This is to say that he does not believe at all that pay-for-play is prohibited.

The question of whether or not the scholarships received by college athletes constitute employment is one best solved when looking at it from a legal perspective. Since the scholarships are a legitimate part of the academic institution, they do not legally constitute employment. By all means, the scholarships have the same restrictions and benefits as employment, and are binding as a contract. The fact that the students are paid money and required to uphold the image of the school, yet are not called employees speaks to Byers' vision of economic camouflage. This system of enticement and reward to attract players to schools is unlikely to stop anytime soon, as it would shake the very foundation the college sports empire is built on.

Works Cited

Zimbalist , Andrew (2001). Unpaid Professionals: Commercialism and Conflict in Big-Time College Sports. Princeton University Press.

Wieberg, S (2007, March 8). Success on the court translates to big money for coaches. Retrieved November 20, 2008, from USA Today Web site: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2007-03-08-coaches-salary-cover_N.htm