The debate over whether or not college athletes should be paid has been raging for decades, but recent developments in sports and society have reignited the conversation. As the landscape of college athletics continues to evolve—especially in the wake of significant legal changes like the NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) rule—more stakeholders, from players to university administrators to the general public, are grappling with this question. Is it finally time to compensate college athletes for the value they bring to their universities, during times like March Madness or should the traditional model of amateurism prevail?
This topic has reached a fever pitch around events like March Madness, where college basketball players draw in millions of viewers and generate enormous revenue for their institutions. The argument is no longer just about whether college athletes are students first, but about equity, fairness, and how the billions of dollars in revenue are distributed across the sports ecosystem. Two key perspectives stand out: the academic and analytical case for paying athletes and the more humorous, yet poignant critiques from popular culture figures like John Oliver.
[ez-toc]
The Case for Paying College Athletes: An Economic Perspective
One of the strongest and most compelling arguments for paying college athletes comes from Allen Sanderson and John Siegfried, two prominent economists, who co-authored an article titled “The Case for Paying College Athletes.” Published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, their analysis breaks down the enormous disparity between the revenue generated by college athletics and the compensation that athletes receive. Spoiler: it’s not much.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rakes in billions of dollars from college sports, with basketball and football being the biggest moneymakers. According to the article, these revenues fund everything from coaching salaries to scholarships, but the athletes themselves—those driving ticket sales, TV viewership, and merchandise—are left out of the economic windfall. This is particularly egregious when compared to the salaries of head coaches in top-tier programs, many of whom earn millions annually.
Coaches’ salaries have been steadily increasing over the past two decades, with the highest-paid coaches like Nick Saban and Dabo Swinney earning upward of $9-10 million annually. Meanwhile, student-athletes are often expected to perform at professional levels without seeing any direct financial benefit. The authors argue that this is a clear market failure: if athletes were allowed to earn what the market dictated, many would receive compensation far beyond a traditional scholarship.
However, defenders of the current system argue that athletes are already compensated through scholarships, room and board, and education—opportunities many regular students can only dream of. But the article by Sanderson and Siegfried points out that the value of these scholarships is minuscule compared to the revenue these athletes generate. Consider the 2019 NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament, which generated $1.1 billion in ad revenue alone, while the athletes playing in the tournament did not see a cent of it.
The NIL Rule: A Step Forward
The debate took a significant turn in July 2021 when the NCAA announced the NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) rule, which allows college athletes to profit from their personal brands. This marked a historic shift in the NCAA’s stance, which had long barred athletes from making any money related to their status as athletes. The NIL rule opened the door for athletes to sign sponsorship deals, appear in commercials, and earn money through social media endorsements.
Since the introduction of the NIL rule, athletes have inked lucrative deals with major brands, showcasing the massive economic potential that was previously untapped. Hercy Miller, a basketball player at Tennessee State University, signed a $2 million endorsement deal just days after the rule took effect. Gymnasts, football players, and even swimmers have all signed major deals, further highlighting that the market is willing to pay athletes for their influence.
Yet, the NIL rule only scratches the surface of the debate. While athletes can now profit from their own likeness, they still do not receive a direct cut of the revenue generated by ticket sales, TV contracts, or merchandise—areas where their contributions are most impactful.
John Oliver and the Cultural Critique
In the more humorous corner of the argument, John Oliver took the NCAA to task in an episode of Last Week Tonight. While his delivery was full of jokes and satire, the points he raised were serious. Oliver critiqued the hypocrisy of the NCAA, pointing out that while coaches, administrators, and networks make vast sums of money, the athletes are kept in a state of forced amateurism. He compared it to a system of exploitation, likening the relationship between athletes and universities to indentured servitude in some instances.
Oliver’s cultural critique resonated with many viewers, as he brought the conversation to a mainstream audience that might not have been fully aware of the inequities at play. His argument was that the NCAA’s primary concern was protecting its revenue streams rather than the well-being or rights of the athletes. This perspective was not new, but Oliver’s comedic delivery helped bring the issue to the forefront of public discourse during a time when March Madness was in full swing and college athletes were once again thrust into the national spotlight without compensation.
The Economic Impact of College Sports
To fully appreciate the magnitude of the debate, it’s essential to understand the broader economic impact of college sports, particularly football and basketball. A study by USA Today found that college athletics programs in the Power Five conferences generate well over $6 billion annually. This money funds not only the athletic departments but also various academic programs, facilities, and even scholarships for non-athletes.
For many universities, the economic benefits of a successful athletic program extend beyond ticket sales and television contracts. Local economies thrive on game days, with restaurants, hotels, and other businesses benefiting from the influx of fans. Major events like March Madness and college bowl games attract national attention, further cementing the economic importance of college athletics.
In this context, the argument for paying college athletes becomes even more compelling. If universities, local businesses, and corporations are all benefiting financially from the performances of student-athletes, shouldn’t the athletes themselves also share in the profits?
What’s Next for College Athletes?
Looking ahead, the conversation around paying college athletes is likely to continue evolving. The NIL rule was a significant victory, but many advocates argue that it’s only a small step in the right direction. The next logical step, they claim, is revenue sharing, where athletes receive a portion of the profits generated by the sports they play.
Opponents of paying athletes worry that doing so could further commercialize college sports and detract from their educational mission. However, as more and more money flows into college athletics, maintaining the status quo becomes harder to justify.
In conclusion, the debate over whether or not to pay college athletes is far from settled. With economists like Allen Sanderson and John Siegfried providing compelling data in favor of compensating athletes, and cultural critics like John Oliver bringing attention to the issue, it seems likely that the landscape of college sports will continue to change. Whether through expanded NIL opportunities or a more direct form of compensation, the conversation around athlete pay will remain a central issue in the world of college athletics.
