Max Engel
This past month, the Governor of California, Gavin Newsome, signed into state law a bill that will allow California college athletes to receive payment starting in 2023. This historic legislation reignited the controversial issue of whether college athletes should receive pay for their athletic prowess. The argument for the payment of college athletes, first made a national issue by members of the Northwestern University football program in 2014 when they attempted to unionize, stems from the idea that college athletes, despite many receiving full scholarships at the Division I level, struggle to get by. Meanwhile, the institutions they play for (universities and the NCAA) make a sizable profit in the “money” sports of football and basketball. The counter to this argument is that the amateur status of college athletes is what makes college sports unique and the lack of cash incentives makes the competition more even across the field.
My take on this controversial issue is this: as a fan of a less popular university (Minnesota), if players are allowed signing bonuses and endorsements this turns college athletics into a brand based game where big name programs (Ohio State, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC etc.) are more likely to sign top talent due to the notoriety of the name of the school. This will lead to larger programs making more money of which they can use to pay their athletes. This, in my opinion, transforms college sports into a junior version of professional sports, thus taking away all the spirit and tradition from small schools (Kent State, North Texas, Florida Atlantic, etc.) who are already at a disadvantage. This reduces the amount of opportunities for athletes to play. However, it should also be noted that with the NCAA’s current revenue stream, the maltreatment of its athletes in some cases is also not tolerable.
My proposition to this issue would be for the NCAA to keep its current policy of endorsements and side payments out of the system. These athletes in many cases are receiving full scholarships to play just one game, which one can view as $45,000-70,000 in payment. My change to this policy would be that there should be a flat monthly pension for all major Division I athletes. For example, there could be a policy that all athletes receive a $500 (hypothetical amount) monthly check from the NCAA no matter what school they go to. This would prevent an increase in the recruitment imbalance, and would solve some of the problems the NCAA is blamed for.
Additionally, I would also have the NCAA make an adaptation that allows universities to issue scholarship forgiveness to athletes who suffer injury and are no longer able to play at the level they need to. An example would be a football player tears his ACL and is no longer able to play at the Division I level. This system would allow the university, with money from the NCAA, to give that athlete some financial aid as opposed to the current system where the athletes typically lose their scholarship entirely and are stuck having to pay for college on their own. While my system is far from perfect (and hypothetical), I think it does a lot in satisfying many of the main points from both sides that create all the controversy around this issue.