Should College Athletes Be Paid
Here's what most people miss when they ask whether college athletes should be paid: it's not really about the money at all. It's about a system that's been running on borrowed time and unpaid labor for over a century. The question isn't just whether NCAA athletes deserve paychecks — it's whether the entire amateur model still makes any sense in 2024.
The short answer? Practically speaking, yes, they should be paid. But the real answer is more complicated than that, and that's why we keep coming back to this debate every few years like it's some kind of moral puzzle that hasn't been solved yet It's one of those things that adds up..
What Is Pay for College Athletes
Let's get clear on what we're talking about. We're not discussing scholarships or expense allowances — those are still standard. I'm talking about direct compensation for the revenue these athletes generate through their performance, appearances, and sheer marketability.
Right now, college athletes can't legally sign endorsement deals or profit from their name, image, and likeness in most states — wait, scratch that. Since 2021, they technically can in many places, but the system is still messy, inconsistent, and riddled with restrictions that make it feel more like a loophole than a solution Worth knowing..
Short version: it depends. Long version — keep reading.
The debate splits into a few camps. There are those who say any payment breaks amateurism and ruins the purity of college sports. Also, then there's the group that thinks the NCAA's massive broadcasting deals and merchandise sales should flow back to the athletes who make it all happen. And somewhere in the middle, people are trying to figure out how to pay athletes without bankrupting universities or creating some bizarre pay-for-play corruption scheme.
Quick note before moving on Not complicated — just consistent..
The Amateur Myth
Here's the thing that drives me crazy: the idea that college sports are "amateur" is already busted. These aren't students playing for fun on weekends. These are full-time jobs with travel schedules, training regimens, and media obligations that would put many professionals to shame.
The University of Alabama's football team practices six days a week. That's why they travel for games every week during season. Their schedules are controlled by coaches, agents, and television networks. When you watch a college football game, you're watching a product — and the people making that product are working full-time jobs without full-time pay.
Why This Debate Matters
This isn't just about fairness or making a quick buck. The current system has real consequences that ripple through everything from high school recruiting to university budgets to the lives of the athletes themselves.
When a top quarterback commits to LSU, he's not just choosing a school — he's choosing a career path that might last three years if he stays healthy and eligible. In real terms, during those three years, he's generating millions in revenue through ticket sales, television contracts, and merchandise. Meanwhile, the NCAA collects that money and distributes it to conferences, schools, and member institutions. The athlete? He gets a scholarship and maybe some extra meals That's the part that actually makes a difference. Nothing fancy..
That math doesn't add up, and anyone who's done basic arithmetic knows it.
The Revenue Machine
Let's look at some numbers that make this real. On the flip side, in 2022, the NCAA's March Madness tournament generated over $1 billion in revenue. Worth adding: the Kentucky Derby? About $400 million. These are the same organizations making similar money from college basketball and football Surprisingly effective..
Counterintuitive, but true.
But here's the kicker: the athletes don't see a dime of that. The NCAA keeps it, universities take their cut, and the athletes get... what? The privilege of saying they play for their school?
Meanwhile, individual schools are raking it in. Alabama's football program sold out a stadium with 101,000 seats for every home game. Their 2023 season brought in nearly $20 million in ticket sales alone. Add in television money, sponsorships, and merchandise, and that program is probably moving tens of millions of dollars annually Easy to understand, harder to ignore. That's the whole idea..
And the athlete who plays quarterback for Alabama? He's got a full scholarship worth around $150,000 over four years. That's $37,500 per year. The program made ten times that from one season's ticket sales.
How the System Actually Works
To understand why this matters, you have to see how the money flows through college sports. It's not a simple pipeline, and it's not fair.
At the top, you've got the NCAA, which negotiates massive television deals for March Madness, the College Football Playoff, and various championship events. In real terms, these deals are worth billions collectively. The NCAA keeps most of that money, with some going to conferences and schools based on participation and performance.
The Conference Connection
Power Five conferences like the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, and Pac-12 are sitting on piles of cash. Which means when they negotiate their own television deals, they're banking hundreds of millions of dollars. So the SEC's recent 10-year deal with ESPN and CBS is worth $3 billion per year. That's $3 billion flowing to conferences, which then distribute to member schools.
Alabama gets a piece of that pie. So does every other SEC school. But the athletes who make Alabama's football team competitive enough to generate those ratings? They're still working part-time jobs in the summer to pay for textbooks.
The system creates a weird pyramid where everyone gets paid except the people actually doing the work. Administrators, coaches, and university officials all collect six-figure salaries or more. Support staff, from trainers to equipment managers to academic advisors, get steady paychecks. But the athletes themselves are treated like volunteers, even when they're generating professional-level revenue.
The NIL Factor
Name, Image, and Likeness rules changed everything in July 2021, but not in the way anyone expected. Suddenly, athletes could sign endorsement deals and make money from social media. In theory, this was progress Simple, but easy to overlook. Which is the point..
In practice, it's created a two-tiered system where wealthy schools and well-connected athletes can put to work these opportunities while smaller programs and less marketable sports get left behind Worth keeping that in mind. Turns out it matters..
A star quarterback at Georgia can sign deals with local businesses, get paid for autograph sessions, and monetize his Instagram following. That's why a soccer player at a mid-major conference school? Good luck finding sponsors But it adds up..
This creates inequality within inequality. Now you've got some athletes making money through NIL while others can't, even if they're equally talented or work just as hard.
What Most People Get Wrong
Here's where the conversation goes off the rails. Most people focus on whether athletes should be paid, but they miss the structural problems that make this debate necessary in the first place Still holds up..
The Volunteer Model is Dead
People still talk about college athletics as if it's about education and amateur competition. But when you look at the actual structure, it's a professional enterprise with amateur trappings.
These athletes travel on charter flights, live in dorms with full-time support staff, and practice for hours every day under conditions that would be illegal in professional sports. They're essentially employees, but they can't unionize, can't negotiate contracts, and can't legally profit from their own labor.
Calling this amateur is like calling a Tesla an automobile from 1900 because it has wheels.
The "Student-Athlete" Lie
The term "student-athlete" itself is problematic. Yes, these people are students. But they're also full-time athletes whose athletic commitments often make it impossible to maintain normal academic schedules Worth knowing..
A football player at LSU might have practice at 4 p.Also, m. , dinner at 6, film study at 8, and then wake up at 5 a.Worth adding: m. Still, for conditioning. That leaves little time for classes, let alone the kind of academic engagement that justifies the "student" part of the equation Less friction, more output..
Not the most exciting part, but easily the most useful Simple, but easy to overlook..
When you look at graduation rates and academic performance, it becomes clear that the "student-athlete" model prioritizes athletic success over educational outcomes Simple, but easy to overlook. Still holds up..
What Actually Works
If you're wondering how to fix this mess, here are some approaches that actually make sense:
Direct Compensation Models
Some economists suggest giving every athlete a stipend based on their sport's revenue generation. Football and basketball players would get significant payments, while Olympic sports and less revenue-generating sports would get smaller amounts Not complicated — just consistent..
This approach acknowledges that different sports contribute different values while ensuring all athletes benefit from their labor.
Revenue Sharing
Another option is mandatory revenue sharing, where a percentage of athletic revenue goes directly to athletes. This could be distributed equally among all athletes at a school or based on sport-specific contributions That's the whole idea..
The University of Michigan
The University of Michigan’s Potential Path
Michigan’s athletic department generates roughly $200 million in annual revenue, with football and men’s basketball accounting for the bulk. So a pragmatic revenue‑sharing scheme could allocate, say, 5 % of total athletic income directly to the athletes who produce that income. Think about it: under this model, the football team might receive $12 million, while the men’s basketball squad would get $8 million. The remaining pool—distributed among all other varsity sports—would confirm that swimmers, track athletes, and club‑sport participants also see a tangible return for their contributions.
The implementation could follow a tiered structure:
- Core Revenue Sports – Football, men’s and women’s basketball, and baseball would receive a higher share (e.g., 8 % of their specific revenue) because their ticket sales, broadcasting deals, and merchandise drive the majority of the budget.
- Mid‑Tier Sports – Sports with solid but not explosive revenues (soccer, lacrosse, wrestling) would get a moderate percentage (5 % of their revenue).
- Olympic and Program Sports – These would receive a baseline stipend (perhaps $5,000 per athlete per year) drawn from a central fund, ensuring that even low‑revenue athletics remain financially viable.
Administrative hurdles are significant. The NCAA’s current rules still restrict direct compensation, and universities would need to manage state labor laws, tax reporting, and potential antitrust concerns. Even so, several conferences have already begun experimenting with “athletic association” models that allow schools to pool revenue and distribute it more flexibly, suggesting a pathway toward broader adoption.
Beyond Revenue Sharing: A Multi‑Pronged Fix
Revenue sharing alone cannot resolve the deeper inequities embedded in the collegiate sports system. A comprehensive solution should incorporate several complementary measures:
-
Universal Stipends – A baseline, non‑taxable stipend (similar to the current NIL allowance) for all varsity athletes would guarantee a floor of compensation regardless of sport revenue. This would address the “volunteer model” critique by ensuring that every athlete receives remuneration for their labor.
-
Collective Bargaining Rights – Granting athletes the ability to unionize would level the playing field. Unions could negotiate standardized contracts, health‑care benefits, and retirement plans, much like professional leagues. The recent NLRB decision recognizing the University of Southern California’s student‑athletes as employees signals a shift that institutions must prepare for.
-
Transparent Accounting – Universities should publish detailed financial statements that break down revenue sources (ticket sales, media rights, sponsorships, NIL deals) and how they are allocated. Transparency would encourage trust among fans, donors, and the broader academic community.
-
Academic Integrity Safeguards – To honor the educational mission, institutions could tie a portion of an athlete’s compensation to academic performance metrics—such as GPA maintenance or graduation rates—ensuring that the “student” component of “student‑athlete” remains meaningful.
The Bottom Line
The current landscape of college athletics is a paradox: institutions profit from athletes’ labor while clinging to an outdated amateur myth. Because of that, the structural problems that make the NIL debate necessary are not isolated incidents but systemic flaws that permeate every level of varsity sport. By moving beyond piecemeal fixes and embracing a framework that combines direct compensation, revenue sharing, collective bargaining, and academic safeguards, universities can begin to align their athletic programs with both ethical labor practices and educational values.
The time for incremental tinkering has passed. Plus, what is needed is a bold, unified restructuring that recognizes athletes as the true stakeholders of college sports—recognizes them not as volunteers in a costume, but as professionals whose contributions deserve fair, transparent, and sustainable compensation. Only then will the promise of college athletics truly serve both the athletes and the institutions they represent And that's really what it comes down to..
Not the most exciting part, but easily the most useful The details matter here..
