Money Woes

Conversely from last week’s post, what would be the disadvantages of paying college athletes to the student-athlete dilemma? Some argue that paying college athletes would actually make matters worse. Instead of allowing them an opportunity to focus on their academics it would instead cause them to not focus on their academics at all.

This is in fact one of the main arguments against paying college athletes. It is believed that if athletes are paid then they will be less inclined to perform well academically due to the fact that they are not required to in order to make money. The benefit of this current system is that it implies a specific distinction between student-athletes who are following the collegiate model and professional athletes who are also students. If college athletes are paid then this would blur the lines between the two and in doing so it would create an extremely large gray area.

Compliments of Jeff Lorenz from Penn State

This gray are is seemingly filled with endless questions. The first of which is how would money be distributed? Do athletes from higher profile sports get paid more even though they put in the same amount of work as someone who participates in a lower level sport? For example, one athlete could be a running back on a national championship bound team. Another athlete could participate in a low level sport like fencing. The dilemma lies in how to distribute money to pay them. Either way the money would be divided up, someone would be unhappy. The fencer would either complain that he or she is making too little and the football player would complain that he is not making enough. It basically comes down to the fact that greed would play a major role in this process and create ongoing dilemmas.

Compliments of Olympic.org

Another major negative effect that would come into play at the possibility of paying college athletes would be bidding wars. It would get to a point where athletes aren’t simply picking a college just because they enjoy the football program there. Some athletes would be purely attracted to who can offer them the most money. This would cause a small percent of all upper tier colleges and universities to have the majority of the better athletes. This would in turn create an unequal playing field and perhaps ruin collegiate sports as they stand today.

When it comes to collegiate sports it is clear that there is a great distinction between Division I and Division II and III sports. This distinction could create another dilemma. Smaller Division III schools may not have the revenue to pay their athletes because their programs are not as big. This could cause the elimination of both Division II and III sports. Thus, only the best athletes would be able to participate in sports at the collegiate level.

Finally, the most important factor of all that comes into play when considering this aspect is the fact that collegiate athletes are choosing to participate in sports. Nobody is forcing them too. If they are unhappy with the current system then they could at any time withdraw from collegiate sports. Most people would argue that this is the one undeniable fact that nobody can dispute. Furthermore, if athletes are good enough then they can surely be compensated for their collegiate efforts at the professional level. Some athletes make tens of millions of dollars per year. This more than compensates them for the meager four years or even less that they spent at the collegiate athletic level.

Overall, what it all boils down to is that there is a disadvantage to every system that aims to fix the student-athlete dilemma. Perhaps the solution lies in not focusing on the athlete part of the problem, but the student part. Universities should be more inclined to make sure that their athletes are being well educated and not simply taking blow off classes. In doing this, athletes will be able to make money in the future with their minds instead of their bodies. After all, the mind is the greatest tool that anyone has.