Should Student-Athletes be Paid?

Abstract:

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) currently prohibits student-athletes from receiving compensation from many non-school-affiliated sources, including sports agents, advertising agencies, and merchandizers. Moreover, student-athletes are prohibited from receiving compensation for media appearances, endorsing products, and autographs. Athletes and schools that violate these rules are subject to various punishments, such as fines, suspensions, and forfeiture of games. This paper challenges this NCAA policy. Accordingly, although colleges and universities often compensate student-athletes with free tuition, room, board, and other expenses, I argue that some prohibitions against athletes receiving compensation from non-school-affiliated sources are: (1) arbitrary and unfair to student-athletes; (2) such policies moreover are non-beneficial to student-athletes since we lack good reason to think the reception or pursuit of outside compensations will harm the student-athlete; (3) no foreseeable detrimental effects to higher education arise if student-athletes are allowed to pursue or receive various compensations; and (4) the integrity of college sports will not be compromised if certain forms of compensation are permitted. I take (1)–(4) as good reasons for doing away with the NCAA’s current policies. Ultimately, while I do not think colleges or universities should compensate student-athletes beyond what they already provide (e.g. free tuition, room, and board), I think student-athletes should be allowed to pursue an assortment of economic-related activities currently prohibited by the NCAA.

Keywords:

• Student-athletes
• compensation
• NCAA policy
• NCAA prohibitions
• college sports

Acknowledgment

I thank Paul Hamilton, Isaac Wagner, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful and invaluable comments on previous drafts of this paper.

Notes

1. One might agree that there is something wrong about the NCAA’s prohibitions, yet not prefer my claim that the wrongness is a matter of unfairness. However, there may be multiple ways to explain the central problem discussed in this paper, and I thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing this important point to my attention. One such alternative, then, is to think of both student-athletes and student non-athletes as having the same rights. They might have these rights in virtue of being free, rational agents. Such rights include the rights to pursue certain economic activities or opportunities. Since they are equals with equal rights—one of which is a right to pursue certain economic activities or opportunities—then it is wrong to deprive one and not the other the right to pursue or receive outside compensations. If the reader prefers this account of what makes the NCAA’s prohibitions wrong, then he or she is welcome to accept it instead. I ultimately think the argument works under multiple accounts, whether it fairness, rights, or perhaps some alternative.

2. At least, I am not aware of such a policy or association. I admit that I open myself to the embarrassing result that such a policy or association exists. However, there are real-life examples where actors simultaneously attend acting school and participate in a number of television, movie, or theater performances—and are compensated for their roles. For instance, while getting a master’s degree from Columbia in acting and production, James Franco starred and received compensation for a number of acting roles. In the acting realm, if a policy against receiving such remuneration exists, then it is weakly enforced.

3. I leave a clear, precise definition of what constitutes a conflict of interest for another time and place. However, I maintain that it seems possible that Gates can receive outside compensations for his computer science abilities without engaging in activity that constitutes a conflict of interest with his university. While there are clear-cut cases where certain outside compensations create such conflicts (e.g. endorsing a rival computer program or publically stating that the computer he helped create is significantly worse than the competition’s), there seem to be clear cases where no such conflict would arise—e.g. appearing in advertisements that endorse certain kinds of computer software.

4. This definition of ‘autonomy’ is a bit fast and loose, but I think it works for the purposes of this paper. For a thorough and useful account of this important philosophical term, see: Christman, J. 2018. Autonomy in moral and political philosophy, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, E. Zalta (ed.), Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/autonomy-moral/.

5. The average NFL career lasts little over three years. Age and health significantly influence the longevity of one’s career, and so most NFL athletes have a short time to earn income as an athlete (SI Wire, 2016).

6. An anonymous reviewer pointed out the scope of this paper is quite narrow since it only applies to college sports in the United States. This is a great concern. However, I think this paper’s context can be broadened: I have argued that in some cases, student-athletes should receive outside compensations. I did so on the grounds that it would be arbitrary and unfair to deny them access to such compensations; and I did so also because receiving such compensations does not necessarily bring about negative consequences (as the reader will see from sections 4–6). Moreover, since, in many cases, the pursuit and reception of such compensations does not bring about conflicts of interest, they should be permitted.

Now I think the basic idea of this argument can be extended to other areas; first broadly construed, if two groups or individuals are, for all relevant purposes, equals, then it would be both arbitrary and unfair to allow one to receive certain compensations but not the other (at least, it would be arbitrary and unfair if there was no justifiable reason for compensating one but not the other). Moreover, if receiving certain compensations or benefits does not: (a) impede one’s ability to fulfill his or her duties to an employer—or any group in which the individual is duty or contractually bound; (b) harm his or her employer or group; or (c) create conflicts of interest, then it seems the pursuit and reception of such compensations should be permitted.

This is a quick and hasty response, but I hope it suffices to show how the context of my argument might be broadened.

7. Such problems are made evident by the National Basketball Association’s current policy that players must be at least one-year removed from high school before they are eligible to enter the league. This policy has resulted in many athletes only attending college for one year; such players are recruited even though it is well-known that they will attend college for one year or stop attending classes once the college season ends. Here, it appears athletes are only using the university’s or college’s services for one academic year before joining the NBA. Such student-athletes seem to be career-focused rather than team or academic-focused. The worry being that academics and team success are an afterthought, which in turn means the student misses out on goods associated with playing for a team or achieving academic success.

8. For example, college football players must be three-years removed from high school before they are eligible to play professional football. For baseball players who choose to attend college, they must also be three-years removed from high school before they are eligible to play professional baseball. For the National Basketball Association, eligible players must be one-year removed from high school. (Nisse, 2015).

9. I owe and thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing this point to my attention.

10. One might press that I am making an arm-chair, conceptual point about a largely empirical issue. Accordingly, it might be that it is an empirical issue whether student-athletes would be harmed if allowed to receive outside compensations. The problem, then, is that I assume without empirical support that student-athletes would not be harmed. However, I have argued that it is in the student-athlete’s best interest to pursue the benefits of both participating in college sports and earning a degree. For given the unlikelihood of a financially viable career as a professional athlete, it is in the student-athlete’s best interest to be as good a teammate and student as possible. Thus, I think it is quite feasible that student-athletes would still (successfully) pursue these goods even if allowed to pursue outside compensations.