"Should College Athletes Be Paid?"

From The College Fix and Huffington Post

Review by Eric Southard in KIN 332

In the article, “Paying College Athletes: Not If, But How”, Rachel Cohen and Ralph D. Russo discuss the controversial topic of should college athletes be paid and if so, how should they be paid. Being a big supporter of paying college athletes, I was happy to read that Mark Emmert, President of the NCAA, is finally starting to realize that college athletes should receive some compensation while attending school. Emmert supports a stipend for these athletes, a stipend that would cover costs beyond tuition, books, and fees, which the athletes’ scholarships currently cover. Both coaches and players agree that college athletes should be paid, mainly stating that these athletes have no time to find a job and are always busy with school and their individual sports. They compare being a student-athlete to working a full time job. 

The biggest impact sports marketing has on paying college athletes is through the television deals and all the money these deals generate for the universities. In the article, Cohen and Russo talk about the lucrative TV deals the NCAA recently agreed to for football and men’s basketball. To broadcast the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, more notably known as “March Madness”, CBS and Tuner Sports agreed to a deal with the NCAA that is worth on average 770 million dollars a year. As for the new college football playoffs, which starts in 2014, the NCAA agreed to a television deal worth around 470 million dollars annually to the conferences. Instead of using all this money towards increasing the salary of college coaches, upgrading facilities, etc, the money should be put towards stipends to pay the “workers”, the ones who actually generate the money, the athletes.