Should college athletes be paid to play sports at school?
That's what a reader who is a student at a Division I NCAA (National Collegiate
Athletic Association) college in southwest Florida wants to know.
He's not alone in asking the question and it's a
reasonable one to ask. As the reader points out, "universities pile up
millions of dollars thanks to their athletic programs that are boosted by these
student athletes with their talents. Yet the universities refuse to pay
them."
If rewarding the students for bringing in cash to the
university is not enough of a reason, my reader wonders how these student
athletes can be expected to take on paying jobs outside of sports given that
"their sports obligations and educational responsibilities keep them from
having the time to do so."
The reader believes that instead of scrutinizing these
student athletes to try to catch them doing wrong by taking a gift from a
booster or cash as an incentive, "we should take the reasonable measure of
giving them a modest salary so at least they can survive their time in
college."
"When," he asks, "does this debate stop
being ethical and instead become one about an essential need for their daily
survival?"
Colleges whose athletic programs fall within Divisions I
and II of the NCAA can offer scholarships to athletes, but NCAA rules forbid
paying them a salary to play a sport. (Division III colleges, typically smaller
schools, cannot offer athletic scholarships under NCAA rules.) So it's not as
if all athletes at these schools are struggling for daily survival.
The question then really doesn't seem to be about
"an essential need for their daily survival." If it is, then athletic
scholarships can address that need for some athletes.
The question seems more about whether it's the right
thing for student athletes to be paid to play, particularly given how much
money is made off of their athletic performances.
Mark Emmert, the president of the NCAA, has made it clear
where he stands on the issue by posting a comment on the organization's
website. "As long as I'm president of the NCAA, we will not pay
student-athletes to play sports. Compensation for students is just something
I'm adamantly opposed to."
He goes on to draw a distinction between amateur
athleticism on the college level and professional sports. "We're providing
athletes with world-class educations and world-class opportunities. If they are
one of the few that are going to move on to become a pro athlete, there's no
better place in the world to refine their skills as a student-athlete."
It would indeed be unfair if some universities paid their
college athletes salaries and others didn't. Adhering to the same set of
guidelines -- agreeing on how it is they will behave when they play sports
together -- is the right thing to do.
If enough of the member colleges and universities believe
that not paying student athletes is wrong or unfair, they should lobby the NCAA
to change. Until it does, there is nothing wrong with not paying accomplished
college athletes. They might not get rich from their performances, but the
likelihood that they'll go hungry is small.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of
The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and
The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When
Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public
policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy
School.
(c) 2013 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.