The Green Elephant Pt. 2

Green Elephant Pt.2

Continuing from the first installment of the Green Elephant; let’s begin to look at some of the reasons that support paying collegiate athletes. One issue is the huge disparities between how much it cost to have a student-athlete attend your school, and the potential revenue generated by each team of athletes that you present for competition. The general consensus is that athletes should be entitled to some of the revenue, because it is generated because of their performance; however the opposition to this is that the student athlete already receives considerably more than the student.

Focusing on NCAA division 1 football because it is the highest revenue generating sport; the past decade or so has seen this into a multibillion dollar industry. Unfortunately we are talking about an industry where the “workers” or players are not being compensated past a scholarship that allows them to be present to essentially do their jobs; “People forget that it is our job to perform, ²"- Florida baseball player Josh Tobias. According to the NCAA.org “Full scholarships cover tuition and fees, room, board and course-related books. Most student-athletes who receive athletics scholarships receive an amount covering a portion of these costs.”1 When totaled up it seems that this would amount to a staggering amount of money being allocated by these universities; division 1 schools are required by the NCAA to offer 85 scholarships per year. Using Ohio State University as an example; the cost of attendance is $21,703 for an Ohio resident, and $38,203 for an out of state student2. Last season Ohio State’s roster featured 44 players from Ohio, totaling $954,932 in scholarship money; the roster also featured 39 out of state players, totaling $1,489,917 in scholarship money; this brings us to a grand total of $2,444,849 in scholarship money. An Ohio State home game generates roughly $7.5 million according to an athletic department spokesman. The approximate revenue of an OSU home game is $5.75 million; this is after paying the opposing team and game expenses 3. On average OSU plays 7 homes per season this equates to nearly 41 million in total revenue. Looking at this from a strictly business standpoint you are spending $2.5 million to make a profit nearly 17 times the investment. This makes a strong argument towards the validity of compensating players in high revenue generating sports. 

Some parties that are in opposition of paying players believe that they are already being compensated enough through receiving their scholarship; UConn athletics director Warde Manuel was quoted saying “With talking about stipends they may receive, people need to start talking about the investment institutions make -- tuition dollars, support, and all the things we do for student-athletes.¹ Warde makes a very legitimate point about the expenses levied on players; this argument is more on the side of the colleges that are not drawing in huge amounts of revenue do to athletics.

1.      http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/21483211/ncaa-president-mark-emmert-hopes-to-unveil-new-stipend-plan-in-april

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12185230/power-5-conferences-pass-cost-attendance-measure-ncaa-autonomy-begins