Professors voice opinions of NCAA athletes receiving pay

The argument whether or not NCAA student-athletes should receive pay has been in discussion almost since the beginning of college sports. In recent issues involving student-athlete pay, college professors have wanted an input on this issue. A sample group of professors were selected by U.S News to voice their decision on the subject of paying student-athletes. The majority of this selected group have been more supportive than opposing on the union being paid, and viewers of these opinions were allowed ratings of the responses and more of the supporting articles received positive feedback. 

Professors that feel student athletes should receive no pay at all, say it would be far too expensive to fund all NCAA athletes. Professors argue that if NCAA athletes saw that the football team was unionizing and receiving pay, then they would too push to have more privileges that the NCAA would not be able to afford. 

“The Division I colleges could afford this expense when the median DI athletics program loses $11 million a year on an operating basis and much more when capital and indirect costs are included,” said by Andrew Zimbalist in his response article The Cost of Paying Athletes Would Be Far Too High. 

Other professors argue that because the NCAA is a big business, the athletes should be paid part of the profit because they are the reason the money is coming in. 

“Without them—on the field or on the court, performing and entertaining millions of college sports fans—the billions of dollars that collegiate athletics generates simply would not exist.” said Bobby Rush in his response article towards The Cost of Playing Athletes Would Be Far Too High. 

Rush, a democratic representative for the state of Illinois, continued to say how the merchandise that is sold on campus and a games are because of the players and who are entertaining the large audience. Without them receiving pay for their work, there is no purpose to work at all. 

From the selected group of college administrators that voiced their opinion, the group that were against unionizing were mainly college professors whereas the members that were in favor of unification were board members and work in the sports administration. This may show a biased selection group of younger administrators or those who are more close to the athletes which would probably give biased opinions against them receiving pay from the professors. 

Not until recently however, have professors openly shared their opinions on this issue. Whether or not the athletes will receive pay and be acknowledged as a union will only be determined by the legal system.