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

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

It has been suggested that paying college student-athletes would reduce illegal payments (Adams, 1996; Clemons, 1996; Cooper, 1994; Goldstein, 1996; Isenberg, 1994; Moran, 2000; Steiber, 1991). Examination of the results found that the primary reason advanced by students for supporting payment of athletes was that cheating, in the form of illegal payments, would decline. This indicates that college students believe, or are aware of, frequent illegal payments to athletes and are seeking methods to reduce the level of illegal payments. College students also advanced that athletes should be paid because of the revenue they generate. These supporters may be basing their perception on the amount of gross income athletic departments receive rather than net income. While athletic programs do generate large amounts of revenue through sponsorships, ticket sales, and merchandise sales, excluding funding from the university itself, Division I-A athletic departments averaged a $823,000 loss in recent years (Suggs, 1998).

As shown in Table 2, opponents of payment believed that student-athletes were already paid, and paid well through an athletic scholarship. DeShazier (2000) reported that in addition to an athletic scholarship, academic tutoring, special computer laboratories, and other benefits student-athletes receive, a college degree will earn and employee, on average. $17,089 per year more than one without a college degree.

Among the 210 college students who opposed payment only 42 considered Title IX implications as a reason not to pay athletes and males were more likely to choose that reason than females. This is an issue that needs serious consideration. Proponents of payment have argued for payment to football and men's basketball players because of the revenue they generate (DeVenzio, 1986). However implementation of this plan may violate Title IX (Rushin, 1997). Rushin (1997) estimated providing a $200 per month stipend to all NCAA student-athletes receiving a scholarship would cost over $540 million. Additionally, the fact that males were more likely to select this option than females may be because males had been exposed the issue of Title IX to a greater extent and were aware of the number of men's sports that had been dropped recently.

Of particular interest to this study was the source of revenue that would be used if student-athletes were to receive payment. While there were significant differences between females and males regarding almost all possible sources (see Table 3) several trends were found in this study. College students' perception that the money should come from the athletic department is consistent with the finding that they perceive athletic departments generate large amounts of revenue. While it is well documented that most athletic departments lose money annually, reducing spending in some areas may save enough money to allow for stipends to student-athletes. Examples of how money could be saved include football teams staying in hotels the night, before home games, traveling by bus rather than flying, and eating at less lavish restaurants. The difference in perceptions between females and males may indicate a difference in interest level and knowledge level about the issue of paying college student-athletes. It is anticipated that as this issue is increasingly discussed, females and males may have similar perceptions.