Should Student Athletes Receive Stipends Past their Scholarships? Dylan Windom Arkansas State University

Intercollegiate athletics has gained a massive amount of popularity over the past few decades. Student-athletes aren’t asking for millions of dollars, they are just asking for enough money to live off of. Television contracts, multi-million dollar coaches, and endorsements are the way to universities and coaches, so it is suitable to provide compensation for the student-athlete who makes these opportunities possible for each university. Proponents of compensating student-athletes for their participation in these revenue-generating sports have been named “pay-for-play” advocates (Haden, 2001, pp.674). “Pay-for-play” brings out the question whether student athletes should receive compensation beyond the tuition, room and board, and books or should they receive zero compensation. The pay-for-play system faces major obstacles such as employment status (workers’ compensation), any federal tax benefits, Title IX, antitrust under the Sherman Act. The first major obstacle that an athlete would face is attaining the employee status. In order for student-athletes to receive additional compensation for their participation in inter-collegiate athletics, they must be recognized as employees of the university (Haden, 2001, pp.674). To follow along with employment status, the pay-for-play advocates encounter additional obstacles in their quest to compensate the student-athlete due to the various tax benefits (Haden, 2001, pp.678). Third, there is also a Title IX problem associated with compensating student-athletes. Title IX requires equal opportunities amongst men and women for participation, treatments, and benefits. Also under Title IX, any university that provides stipends to male student athletes must provide a proportional amount of stipends to its female athletes. For the most part, most division I universities have substantially more men’s athletic programs, with men’s activities (such as football) involving more student-athletes per team (Haden, 2001, pp.679). This discrepancy begins to become an obstacle with intercollegiate athletics. Lastly, the most commonly cited obstacle in the path of pay-for-play advocates is the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Sherman Act states “every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal (Haden, 2001, pp. 679). The NCAA and its institutions partake in interstate commerce with activities such as; recruiting, ticket sales and competitions. Which then makes the NCAA subject to Sherman Act restrictions on stipends. After all the obstacles were faced and the lawsuits took place, the conclusion to provide “laundry money” to student athletes (RE-WORD)
According to the article, The Exploitation of the Student-Athlete: Student Athletes Deserve Compensation For Their Play in the College Athletic Arena (UNDERLINE OR ITALICIZE), says that each division 1 university should incorporate “laundry money into the scholarships of all their student-athletes.” In each scholarship, a comprised amount of money should be included. This extra money would provide the athlete with sufficient funds to address any problems that arise such as plane tickets, family emergencies or even affording social events. This proposal addresses the major obstacles stated above while facing the pay-for-play system. According to the article, by incorporating the money into the scholarship package itself, the student-athlete would not reach the employee status. Since the laundry money would not qualify the athlete as an employee this would exempt the student athlete from any labor law issues. Secondly, while incorporating this extra money this would not deprive the University of any Federal Tax Benefits. Third, the laundry money proposal avoids any Title IX concerns the university might have with stipends. Under this proposal each student athlete would receive the money regardless or sport or gender. For example, the one hundred male college football student-athletes would receive the same amount as the 10 female college tennis student athletes, which would prevent having a Title IX situation. Lastly, the laundry money solves any antitrust concerns arising under the Sherman Act (Haden, 2001, pp.680). While incorporating this extra money into the scholarship the universities would not be participating in price-fixing, because each university is free to structure the contents of their individual scholarship packages (Haden, 2001, pp. 680). NEED A TRANSITION SENTENCE.. Many people to this day will argue that student athletes are “employees” under federal labor laws and entitled to form unions and negotiate wages, hours and working conditions (Cooper, 2011). This isn’t the case with the new laundry money proposal. In reality student athletes do have a job but it’s more of a physical and emotional job. College athletes find it hard to balance a job on the side and focus on academics and athletics. Student athletes do not get paid an hourly or set wage rate to do what they love. Instead they get a full ride paid for that includes many benefits. So in this case, it doesn’t seem like a student athlete would be classified as an employee since the stipend money is put into the scholarship once they sign the National Letter of Intent. Another reason to argue that student athletes deserve the stipend even after all the full benefits is that college athletics brings in millions of dollars to their schools. The college sports industry generates $11 billion in annual revenues. Fifty colleges report annual revenues that exceed $50 million. Meanwhile, five colleges report annual revenues that exceed $100 million. These revenues come from numerous sources, including ticket sales, sponsorship rights, and the sale of broadcast rights (Mitchell, 2013). Schools would have no way of receiving this type of money to better the environment for the kids if it wasn’t for college athletics. The athletes that generate this money need to receive a partial amount in a stipend. There are these things called “black markets” that end up getting student athletes in trouble due to violating NCAA rules while being eligible. If student athletes were allowed a stipend, they wouldn’t have to reach out to agents, banks, donors to give them money, cars, etc. When this problem takes place the student athlete looses all his eligibility until further notice. Such thing has just happened at the University of Kansas with men’s basketball player Cliff Alexander. So now the kid is faced with not competing in the NCAA tournament and will not suit up in a Kansas uniform again. (ASK DREW IF CORRECT)
Lastly, there is a notion that student-athletes are “amateurs” participating in the sport for the pure love of the game. (INFO)
While universities are making millions per year based on the performance of student-athletes, this then improves university endowment, enrollment, education and environment. It’s only fair to provide student-athletes the necessary means with which to enjoy the prospering environment they have helped create at their university. To think the innocence of college athletics could be stripped away would be detrimental to many institutions and audiences who support those athletic departments. In conclusion, college athletics will always be a huge money making business for the universities, so it doesn’t hurt to take better care of the student athletes by allowing them to receive stipends. By incorporating an addition of $900 of “laundry money” into each student athlete’s scholarship package, universities’ would avoid the legal obstacles that have for so long prevented fair compensation for the student athlete (Haden, 2011, pp.681).

Reference List

Haden, C. (2001). Foul! The exploitation of the student-athlete: student athletes deserve compensation for their play in the college athletic arena. Journal Of Law & Education,
30(4), 673-681.

COOPER, K. J. (2011). Should College Athletes Be Paid to Play?. Diverse: Issues In
Higher Education, 28(10), 12-13.

Mitchell, H., & Edelman, M. (2013). Should College Student-Athletes Be Paid?.
U.S. News Digital Weekly, 5(52), 17.