To pay or to play?

Newsplaining Column: As I was watching college football for the first time this weekend, I found myself floating in and out of the controversy of whether or not I was perpetuating the taking advantage of college athletes or passing the time with a late Saturday night football game.
An under the radar debate happening in collegiate sports world is whether or not players deserve to be paid to play while in college.
Current NFL rookie tight end Jake Butt (Denver Broncos) was interviewed in a piece for ESPN.com, citing the need for collegiate athletes to be compensated for their performance on the field. Butt was slated to be a first round draft pick in this past year’s draft, but tore his ACL in a bowl game (not mandatory to be eligible to play for the school, in this case, Michigan State). Because of this, Butt dropped down to the fifth round, on the count that he was unable to fully participate in training camp, and no football scout was sure that he would be able to compete at the level he once could compete at.
Butt’s argument was — worst case scenario — if he was injured to the point he could not play football again, then he had spend his three years in college, playing a game he was scouted for in high school, only to have nothing to show for it when it was over, except for a badly injured knee. Meanwhile, the school, as well as the Big 10 Conference, profited immensely off of him playing in the game. For reference, in fiscal year 2015, according to USA Today, the Big 10 conference made $448.8 million in total revenue. Michigan saw $32.4 million of that money (to note, this is money made by the conference in all sports, including football and basketball).
No college player saw any of that money.
Michigan State’s Head Coach John Harbaugh (former Michigan State head coach and San Francisco 49ers head coach) makes $9 million a year according to the LA Times, surpassing the famous Nick Saban, head coach of Alabama, who made $6.9 million a year.
Sure, one of the perks of playing for a Division I school is that scholarships are offered for athletics, and most players playing for a Division I school are on some form of scholarship. Most deniers of collegiate athlete pay say that the benefits of a free education should be enough for players to compete for a national title.
But here’s where that argument runs into some hurdles. The scholarship for most students covers the education, and in some cases, room and board on campus. However, these scholarships don’t necessarily cover the fees that universities require students to pay. These fees include an athletics fee that goes to funding the athletic programs. In some cases, students get free tuition, but then also have to pay to participate in athletics. A student’s tuition doesn’t go towards athletics, it goes towards the education, and the paying of the room and board allows them to receive that education. But when that player steps onto the field, that player is not a student. They’re a quarterback, a wide receiver, a safety, etc. They’re supposed to make big plays in front of thousands of people and on national television. And the school/team they play for is making money off of their efforts.
Should they still get some sort of compensation? The school isn’t putting that student’s test score on live television. Also, the fact that the student needs to be enrolled and maintain a minimum grade point average also makes that “free-ride” argument a little flimsy.
Consider Jaylon Smith, a Notre Dame linebacker who was drafted in the second round of the 2016 NFL draft. Smith was projected to be a top five pick, but after tearing every ligament in his knee and tearing the perineal nerve in his leg, doctors were concerned about whether or not Smith would ever be able to walk again. Smith wound up being able to not only walk, but play tackle football a year and a half after his injury. But had Smith not been a miracle, then the top talent that help Notre Dame win football games would have had nothing to show for it. Sure, he’d have a degree — which is why he went to school in the first place, most would say — but still, he gave three years of his blood, sweat and tears to that school/team, and gotten nothing out of it.
And to further challenge the argument that the players are getting a degree for their performance, remember that if students were really there for a degree, they wouldn’t be playing football, where a player has a high chance of getting knocked out every snap. America is addicted to football. It wants more games, and players to play them.The NFL owns a day of the week, football is played on Monday nights, and over the last three years, on Thursday nights, and college football virtually goes until the wee hours Saturday night/Sunday morning. Face it, we love football and want player to compete. If Andrew Luck decided to quit football at Stanford and commit to his studies, the alum, students and television networks would have a field day.
At some point we have to realize that the whole, they get a degree for smashing into each other every Saturday night is lie to make sure that colleges get more money from enrollment, and more money from TV deals.
Something has to be done for the players. NCAA rules state that players can’t use their likeness as a student athlete to profit. Why not? They aren’t getting paid. So what if the star quarterback stars in a local car commercial. He’s not going to make millions, but at least his effort will have been worth something. And with the turnover rate of college football players, there’d be a new star every year.
The fact of the matter is that with college coaches making nearly $10 million to shout at a ref at Michigan State, there is no argument that the students shouldn’t receive something more in return than a degree.