College Students' Perceptions On The Payment Of Intercollegiate Student-Athletes - Statistical Data Included

College Student Journal, June, 2001 by Raymond G. Schneider

Table 1
Reasons Male and Female College Students Believe Intercollegiate
Athletes Should Receive Direct Cash Payments

                                                Males    Females
             Reason                   All Ss    n=159     n=89

A scholarship does not cover costs      74       37        37
Student-athletes generate revenue      157       107       50
Cheating would decline                 189       127       62

                                           [X.sup.2]
             Reason

A scholarship does not cover costs          9.13(*)
Student-athletes generate revenue            3.04
Cheating would decline                       3.28

(*) p < .001

S = subjects

Of those who opposed cash payments to student-athletes (n=210) the most often selected answers were that athletes are already paid through an athletic scholarship (49%) and athletic departments do not have enough money for additional payment beyond a scholarship (39%). Table 2 shows males were significantly more likely than females to perceive Title IX implications would make payment impossible ([X.sup.2](1). N=210) = 6.62, p [is less than] .001).

Table 2
Reasons Male and Female College Students Believe Intercollegiate
Athletes Should Not Receive Direct Cash Payments

                                       Males   Females    [X.sup.2]
         Reason              All Ss    n=118    n=92

Athletes are already paid     103       55       48          .64
Not enough money to pay        82       49       33          .70
Title IX implications          42       31       11         6.62(*)
Tax implications               61       28       33         3.70

(*) p < .001

S = Subjects

If the NCAA were to allow payment, college students' most frequently believed the additional money should come from the athletics department (56%) and additional revenue generating contracts such a shoe and television contracts (50%). Increasing tuition to pay college athletes was selected by 24% of respondents. As shown in Table 3, females were significantly more likely than males to support obtaining the additional funding to pay athletes from the athletic department (X2(1), N=458) = 25.46, p [is less than] .001), the general fund ([X.sup.2](1), N=458) = 8.581, p [is less than] .001) and other contracts ([X.sup.2](1), N=458) = 136.29, p [is less than] .001).

Table 3
Revenue Source Male and Female College Students Believe Should Be
Used to Fund Payment of the NCAA were to allow Direct Cash Payments

                                        Males    Females   [X.sup.2]
          Reason              All Ss    n=277     n=181

Athletics Department           255       128       127      25.46(*)
General Fund of University     111       54        57        8.58(*)
Shoe, Television Contracts     231       119       112     136.29(*)
Increased Tuition              112       70        42         .253
Additional Playoff Systems     158       151        7      124.26(*)

(*) p < .001

S = Subjects

Discussion

The major purpose of this investigation was to determine the perceptions of college students' on the issue of paying intercollegiate student-athletes. In this study college students supported paying student-athletes. This indicates that, for the conference studied, college students' valued the athletes, athletic programs, and the attention intercollegiate athletics brings to their institutions. Furthermore, while some authors (Levine & Cureton, 1998; Mangan, 1994) discussed college students' dissatisfaction with increasing costs, this study revealed that students', to a smaller extent, supported increasing tuition and fees to pay student-athletes.