Nick Sova

Writing and Reading Texts- 06

December 13th, 2013
Research Paper

Compensation of Division 1 Football Players

Participating in college competition is one of the most fun things an athlete can do
in the short time they are involved with the school and sport. Most athletes will not ever
have the opportunity to know what it is like to play a sport at the college level.
Additionally, the rigorous academic courses that each athlete has to take in order to
participate, makes being a student-athlete a full time job. There are many perks to being
an athlete at a Division I school. In addition to the free gear and unlimited use of all
athletic facilities, most Division I athletes, specifically football players, are on full
academic scholarships. This scholarship pays for everything a normal student would
have to pay for in order to receive an education from the school. In the past few years,
there have been many arguments regarding whether or not athletes at the Division I level
should receive some other sort of compensation besides the previously stated perks. Most
of the talk is regarding financial compensation; in the sense that athletes in college should
be paid to play the sport and go to school. Compensation for Division I athletes is
something that should be adopted across the country for various reasons. Being able to
raise money on your own in way such as signing autographs, or being sponsored by a
shoe company could be ways to be compensated from the field. Also, some sort of

stipend could be implemented for the players whos on field performance would go more
unnoticed, and who would be less likely to sign autographs or sponsor deals.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is in charge of anything
that has to do with college athletics. The organization makes all the rules regarding
amateurism, which is defined as: an athlete who has never accepted money, or who
accepts money under restrictions specified by a regulatory body, for participating in a
competition. This, among many other factors, determines what makes an amateur
athlete, an amateur athlete. The association was founded in 1906 and was initially for
football players. The main purpose was to keep them safe from the harsh realities of the
sport. Now the multi-million dollar organization watches over men and womens college
athletics, and advertises them in a way these student athletes could never think of doing
themselves. When a high school football player signs his national letter of intent, he is
essentially signing his life away to not only the school, but to the NCAA. NCAA
athletes are held to what is, essentially, the strictest code of amateurism in sports. It's not
just that the rules that prevent them from driving a booster's Ferrari to Las Vegas for the
weekend. The rules can make them think twice before bumming a ride to the mall (The
Case For Paying College Athletes, Ben Cohen, Wall Street Journal). This quote, taken
from Ben Cohens September 2011 article, basically describes how the NCAA has too
high of standards for these players. College football players are held to standards that
players in the National Football League are held to. The only problem is, these athletes
are not being paid millions of dollars to play the game. It seems that everyone benefits
from these players except the players themselves.

Texas A&M Quarterback Johnny Manziel is a twenty-one year old redshirt

sophomore from Tyler, Texas. After coming off an incredible freshman season filled with
many awards, most notably The Heisman Memorial Trophy, he was accused of accepting
money for signing autographs for an autograph collector. According to the NCAA, this is
something that is considered illegal in college sports. The question is why is a player who
has worked his whole life on perfecting his skills on the football field, not allowed to sign
his legal name for money? The NCAA believes that they are helping these athletes by not
exploiting them to the dangers of professionalism. Yet, they are allowed to use their
names and pictures as advertisements for championship bowl games. The only person not
making money in this process is the one who deserves the money in the first place and
that is the player.
University of New Haven business professor Allen Sack, a former Notre Dame
football player, believes there's a way for students to be compensated without forcing
schools to pay them. He said, NCAA athletes should take a page from the Olympic
model of amateurism. They should be allowed to take control of their own marketing
rights: to hire agents, sign endorsement deals and engage in other entrepreneurial
activities. Anybody who can write a business plan is able to make money from big-time
college sports -- except the athletes themselves, (The Case For Paying College
Athletes, Ben Cohen, Wall Street Journal). Even if paying athletes is not on the table of
something that could be considered a reasonable idea, Allen Sack believes there is a form
of compensation that could work out in favor of the players. Sacks entrepreneurial model
of compensation realistically is something that could be used in the near future. Cohen
goes on to explain the reasoning of this in the next paragraph of his article. He states that

financially it would not cost the school any extra money because the money would be
given to the athletes from whomever they sign a sponsorship deal to.
Mark Emmert started his tenure as the president of the NCAA on November 1st,
2010. Since then, he has been a firm believer in being against the pay for play method for
college athletes. A quote taken from the NCAA website from President Emmert states as
follows, As long as I'm president of the NCAA, we will not pay student-athletes to play
sports. Compensation for students is just something I'm adamantly opposed to. We're
providing athletes with world-class educations and world-class opportunities. If they are
one of the few that are going to move on to become a pro athlete, there's no better place
in the world to refine their skills as a student-athlete. Since President Emmert has openly
gone on the record to say that he is against paying college athletes, the chances of getting
some sort of compensation rule changed is next to impossible.
Joe Nocera published a December 2011 article in the New York Times titled Lets
Start Paying College Athletes. Nocera states that after Emmert had been the president
for a little over year, he had changed numerous rules including higher academic policies
for athletes, and giving the coaches the choice to cut a player based on performance on
the field or because of an injury. In addition to these changes was another big one:
with Emmerts backing, the NCAAs board of directors, composed of college and
university presidents (Emmert himself is a former president of the University of
Washington), agreed to make it permissible for Division I schools to pay their athletes a
$2,000 stipend. (Lets Start Paying College Athletes, Joe Nocera, The New York
Times). What does this $2,000 stipend entail? After President Emmert stated that he was
against paying student athletes and was trying to keep them away from professionalism,

he works out a way for colleges to pay its athletes $2,000 per year. When Nocera
confronted President Emmert about the stipends, he responded with The extra $2,000
was an effort to increase the value of the scholarships, which some studies estimate falls
on average about $3,500 short of the full cost of attending college annually (Lets Start
Paying College Athletes, Joe Nocera, The New York Times). I believe this is another
way in which compensation could be implemented into the lives of college athletes.
Stipends could be used for multiple things in the lives of athletes and said athletes could
use the stipends as they wish, such as groceries, clothes, and other amenities that
someone would need to live a healthy safe lifestyle. Stipends could also be used to buy
the things that many athletes are being suspended for in the first place such as tattoos,
expensive tickets, or even cars.
Part of the reason that many people are opposed to paying college athletes is
because they are on scholarship. Contrary to popular belief, there are many football
players in the top organizations who are preferred walk on players. A preferred walk on is
a player who was recruited by the team but is not given an athletic scholarship. In
football if a scholarship is given, it is a full ride scholarship that pays for the entire
schooling as well as food and living. People who are opposed to paying players believe
this is more than enough for athletes to live on while they attend college. Two main
points could be used to argue this: one, many of the top tier football players are not going
to the college to get a good education or their degree, they are going to use the program
as a stepping stone to the NFL.
The second argument used could be that football players have an age peak in
which they are at their top level of performance. Adam Moir published an article in the

United States Sports Academies The Spots Digest, Titled When Does a Football
Player Get Old? In his article he mentions his research about when athletes start to peak
at their highest levels. According to Kalb (1999), Muscle mass peaks at age 25 and then
decreases by about 4 percent per decade until the age of 50 (When Does a Football
Player Get Old? Adam Moir, The Sports Digest). Adding in the fact that a running back
or another player on the field is getting hit hard for three hours every Saturday for seven
months out of the year, one would bet that the peak age is decreased by a year or two. If
the peak performance of player is decreased, then that player loses out on a chance to
make more money at the professional ranks. This is where these athletes have a limited
time to make money that will keep them financially stable when they are no longer apart
of the game. This could also force players to leave college early because they are feeling
the pressures of having to make money to earn a living for themselves and their family.
When people bring up the topic of giving compensation to Division I athletes,
often times athletes who are preferred walk ons are the players who need the
compensation more than anyone. As a walk on, the player is not given any money from
the schools athletic program. If he is good academically he may receive money that way
or through financial aid. President Emmerts $2,000 clause could go a long way for
athletes who are walk-ons because they could use it for their tuition. Unfortunately, the
clause was disabled almost immediately after it was passed. Most players will never have
a high caliber name like players such as Johnny Manziel, or Alabama Quarterback and
two time national champion A.J. McCarron have. A little extra money given to these
players could be very useful financially for them as well as their families.
College football produces so much revenue for schools all across the country. This

money is generated by the play of these athletes on the field; yet they cannot be rewarded
with compensation. Anthony Miller published an article in The Sports Journal titled,
NCAA Division I Athletics: Amateurism and Exploitation. He argues two flaws in the
system about college education with these athletes who are specifically here to play
football, win championships, and produce money and attention for the school. The first
is student-athletes, many of whom are making large amounts of money for their schools,
often are not receiving any kind of legitimate, quality education. The second is
compensation student-athletes receive in the form of athletic scholarships is not
comparable to the marginal revenue products they individually generate for colleges
(Wertheimer, 2007; Brown & Jewell, 2004). (NCAA Division I Athletics: Amateurism
and Exploitation, Adam Miller, The Sports Journal). Many of the top college football
players are expected to go to the NFL to make a living. Which means they are
considering college football a stepping-stone on the path to get there. These football
players are called student-athletes for a reason; student comes before athlete. Their
performance in the classroom is crucial to their performance in competition. Miller
argues in his article that these athletes are not given a proper education because they are
put in classes that are designed for them to be eligible to play football. This argument
works towards making compensation to college athletes something that should seriously
be considered. Even though many top athletes are getting college paid for, getting an
education seems to be one of the last things on their mind. Millers second argument talks
about the revenue that these players generate for their schools. From merchandise to
ticket sales, they generate millions of dollars each year and it plays a major role in
funding programs at the school.

College football is one of the most viewed and most profitable sports in America.
It generates money for not only schools, but also organizations and companies that
produce products for the schools. With the help of the NCAA, college football is well
over a billion dollar industry. These players trained their entire lives to get to the stage
they are at. Running onto the field on a Saturday afternoon in front of 110,000 plus
screaming fans at some of the countrys most historic stadiums such as Neyland Stadium
or Bryant-Denny Stadium, is another step to reaching their ultimate goal: running onto
the field on a Sunday afternoon in the NFL.
College football is the best way to get to the NFL, but with the NCAA involved
there are many flaws. I believe that the NCAA spends too much time on trying to catch
players breaking the rules of amateurism and not enough time teaching them the most
efficient ways to be a professional. Compensation to college athletes makes a strong case
for itself in teaching these athletes about professionalism and how to become more
mature and financially responsible while playing the game they love. People say money
is the root of all evil, but I believe that in this case money could be a savior to college
sports. If athletes are compensated for their play, they will not have to go behind the
backs of coaches and other school officials to accept money. It will bring more honesty
back to sports and ultimately make them more enjoyable to watch.

Works Cited
Cohen, Ben. "The Case for Paying College Athletes--- The Issue Is Gaining Momentum,
But Nobody Knows How to Do It; the 'Trust Fund' Model." Wall Street Journal [New
York] 16 Sept. 2011, Eastern ed., Sports sec.: n. pag. ProQuest. Web. 13 Dec. 2013.
<http://search.proquest.com/docview/890140250>.
Emmert, M. (2012, Jan 11). Paying college athletes is a terrible idea. Wall Street Journal.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/915023391?accountid=28109
Miller, Anthony W. "NCAA Division I Athletics: Amateurism and Exploitation." The
Sports Journal (n.d.): n. pag. United States Sports Academy. Web. 13 Dec. 2013.
<http://thesportjournal.org/article/ncaa-division-i-athletics-amateurism-and-exploitation>.
Moir, Adam. "When Does a Football Player Get Old?" The Sports Journal (n.d.): n. pag.
Web. 13 Dec. 2013. <http://thesportdigest.com/archive/article/when-does-football-playerget-old>.
"National Collegiate Athletic Association." NCAA Office the President. N.p., n.d. Web. 13
Dec. 2013. <http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/ncaa president/ncaa
president mark emmert>.
Nocera, Joe. "Let's Start Paying College Athletes." The New York Times [New York, New
York] 30 Dec. 2011, Sports sec.: n. pag. The New York Times, 30 Dec. 2011. Web. 13
Dec. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/lets-start-paying-collegeathletes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>.