Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Show Student-Athletes the Money

Down to the Wire

Published: Friday, March 1, 2013

Updated: Friday, March 1, 2013 01:03

Last Saturday, Otto Porter Jr. shot 63 percent, scored 33 points and had one turnover while playing all 40 minutes. Any player should in theory become less efficient and less effective the more minutes he plays in a game, but that common sense clearly doesn’t apply to anyone who is on a personal mission to send 35,000 fans home disappointed. Somehow, Porter Jr.’s game never slipped from beginning to end.

Not only did Saturday’s performance preemptively earn Porter Jr. a lot of money whenever he decides to enter the NBA draft, but, as a result of the high NCAA seed that he’s about to deliver, he may have earned his school a bucketful as well.  

But are the players who generate such incredible revenue for their schools like Porter Jr. getting their fair shake?  It’s perhaps the most popular question in sports these days: Should top-flight NCAA athletes get paid?

In my opinion, absolutely. Whether you are a top basketball player from Georgetown, a top football player from Alabama or any other NCAA athlete, you deserve part of the money that you’re generating for your institution.

Many will argue that college sports are designed as an extracurricular program within institutions that are centered on education. After all, the reason that most NCAA athletes play a sport in college is to receive the educational benefits, making athletics just another part of the overall college experience.

This viewpoint, however, overlooks the way that the NCAA treats its athletes. Any athlete in an elite college sports program will tell you that — between practices, meetings and travel time — athletics are a job, not an extracurricular activity. If the coaches, athletic departments, trainers, NCAA executives and even fans treated elite college sports as just another activity in which college students can partake, I’d understand the above argument. But proponents of this contention forget that student-athletes are told to emphasize the word “athlete” far more than “student.”

Many will also compare student-athletes directly to the other students on campus. If the university is based on academics, and most students were accepted to the school for academics, some would suggest that the universities are doing enough for the student-athletes by giving them scholarships for something that isn’t even academic.

Consider, though, how many paid on-campus jobs Georgetown offers. I don’t know the exact number, but I can at least gauge that it’s very high relative to the 7,000 undergraduates we have. Now whose services are more important to Georgetown — those of Otto Porter Jr. or those of the average job-holding Georgetown student? 

The last thing that I’m trying to do is belittle the jobs that students on this campus undertake, but Porter Jr.’s services are clearly more important to Georgetown than any other student’s on the Hilltop. And he gets no financial compensation for it.

People are still going to argue that such a situation is appropriate because college sports are not seen as a job, but that’s precisely my point. So many students have an obligation to fulfill their jobs for the university, and student-athletes are no different. They have an obligation to the university to give every ounce of energy they have to improving the university’s sports programs. 

Because college coaches, university athletic departments and NCAA executives already treat players like the sport is their job, it’s time that colleges view student-athletes in the same way that they view other job-holding undergraduates.

Chris Webber, a member of Michigan’s “Fab Five” basketball team in the early 1990s, famously voiced his displeasure with his lack of compensation. While walking past a sporting goods store near the Michigan campus with a reporter during his college years, he once asked why it was that they were selling a jersey with his number on it for $75, but he couldn’t afford to eat lunch at a nearby restaurant.  

Finally, there’s Walter Byers, the NCAA president from 1951 to 1988, who governed the NCAA with relatively unquestioned control and with great esteem within the NCAA community. Byers, however, reflected on his years as president by writing a book called “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Exploiting College Athletes” in 1997. In his book, Byers not only compared modern-day college athletes to plantation workers but also argued that the days of sports being a student activity were gone, as student-athletes should have had the same free market earning potential as their coaches. Considering the source, it’s hard to find an opinion more powerful than that.

On both the executives’ and players’ ends of the spectrum, Webber and Byers, who were each entrenched within the NCAA in very different ways, realized that athletes should have been paid for their services — and that was over 15 years ago.

There’s no good reason that Otto Porter Jr. shouldn’t be getting compensated for lighting up the Carrier Dome like a Christmas tree.

 

Tom Hoff is a sophomore in the McDonough School of Business. DOWN TO THE WIRE appears every Friday.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

4 comments

@12:30 commenter
Fri Mar 1 2013 15:45
Even though some people don't care about basketball and the school would stop running if students didn't work in admin jobs/the library/etc, it doesn't mean Porter isn't more important than all the other students. Normal student jobs are relatively easy and anyone could fill them. Porter is one of very small group of people who can do what he does -- making him extremely valuable.
Michael Bayer
Fri Mar 1 2013 15:29
There's no good reason that Otto Porter Jr. shouldn't be getting compensated for lighting up the Carrier Dome like a Christmas tree.

Actually, there are plenty of good reasons, starting with your own claim that, "So many students have an obligation to fulfill their jobs for the university, and student-athletes are no different."

So ALL student-athletes should get paid? The swim team, the volleyball team, and the tennis team, too? Or are you arguing that only student-athletes who bring the university revenue should get paid? How exactly would you calculate that? Is John Caprio currently making the university money?

What about other student activities that increase the prestige of the University and directly or indirectly result in increased income? If students win a national debate contest, should they be paid for their performance?

What about the fact that the vast majority of collegiate athletics programs lose money? Every available study shows irrefutably that fewer than 25% of Division I programs turn a profit. Moreover, per-student spending on athletes ranges from 3 to a whopping 12 times as much per student, due to the cost of things like athletics facilities, trainers, coaches, meals, travel, and other expenses. In the Big East, for example, the median amount spent per non-athlete is $17,620 per year, compared to $102,032 per student-athlete. (To read a more in-depth report, click here: http://www.deltacostproject.org/pdfs/DeltaCostAIR_AthleticAcademic_Spending_IssueBrief.pdf )

A much more reasonable proposal would be to allow student-athletes to receive academic credit for their participation, up to 3 credits per semester, and to major in athletics-related fields. If a vocal performance major hoping to sing on Broadway can receive academic credits for her voice class at the University of Michigan, why can't an offensive tackle receive credits for learning how to zone block? (Not to mention all the other skills taught by participation in a sport.) Being on a sports team teaches a great many practical skills such as discipline, perseverance, and learning to function as a member of a team (some of your teammates, much like in the "real world," being people you don't particularly care for).

Anonymous
Fri Mar 1 2013 12:30
Although I agree that Otto Porter is a beast.. how does one decide who gets paid and who doesn't? The winning team isn't just made up of Otto Porter. Would we have won against UConn if D'Vauntes Smith-Rivera didn't shoot a three with seconds left on the clock? Would we have won if Markel didn't score 19 points? Other teams (lacrosse, mens soccer was 2nd, track/field won NCAA championship last year) work hard too- should they also get compensated? Will recruiting start bidding wars and turn into only the rich schools having the best basketball programs? If they do well in college they will make millions in the NBA. I'm sure they get a lot of free goodies along with a free education for doing something that they love. And how are his services more important to Georgetown than any other undergraduate jobs? Let's be honest - If undergraduates stopped doing their jobs Georgetown would fall apart- it would be complete chaos as undergraduate students are necessary in administrative positions/library positions/the student employment office (which helps students get paid)/student guards/teachers assistants/research assistants. Might seem crazy but some people at Georgetown don't even care about the basketball team - they came here for their academics. If Otto Porter doesn't make a couple baskets then the hilltop does not fall apart. Somehow we haven't done well in a tournament in the last couple of years and Georgetown lives on.
Anonymous
Fri Mar 1 2013 12:07
Couldn't agree more. It's a joke that Georgetown, the Big East, and the NCAA are going to make a ton of money off of Porter and his teammates, but the players see nothing more than a scholarship (which a lot of big time athletes don't care about) and some free clothes.

People might argue that the athletic department needs the revenue for other sports, but that's not convincing. They should run the athletic department more efficiently or fund non-revenue sports the same way student clubs are funded.





log out