The case against athletic stipends

Sporting News, The, April 10, 1995 by John Gerdy

So you want to pay student athletes?

You say that while universities are making millions from college athletics, the student athletes who are responsible for generating that revenue do not have enough money for a Saturday night date. You point out that the case for paying student athletes was particularly strong last week, when the NCAA interrupted its counting of the millions generated from its men's basketball tournament to conduct the Final Four in Seattle. But before I agree with you, shouldn't we look at the other side of the issue?

A full athletic scholarship can amount to more than $15,000 per year. Don't student athletes also receive free academic support in the form of tutoring and other personal development programs and services? And can't truly needy student athletes receive up to $2,400 per year in federal Pell Grant money over and above the full scholarship? And, isn't it true that the NCAA now provides financial assistance to Pell Grant recipients for travel home for family emergencies, medical, dental or vision expenses and course supplies, as well as a $200-per-year clothing allowance? Student athletes can still work summer jobs to earn extra docket money for the academic year, can't they? But you still think they should get paid. Hey, wait a minute. They are being paid. Student athletes already have a contract that can earn them a significant amount of money.

According to figures from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the correlation between higher education and income is dramatic. In 1993, the average annual earnings for males with a high school degree working full time was $22,236 compared with $38,820 for a worker with a bachelor's degree. The difference is $16,584 per year, which we will round to $16,600. When projected over a 50-year work career, the difference in lifetime earnings is $830,000.

It is easy to think paying student athletes stipends will solve all of college athletics' problems. It is an easy solution for our quickfix society. If we have the long-term interests of the student athlete in mind, we would stop talking about paying student athletes and begin identifying ways in which we can assure that they actualize the personal, academic, athletic and economic opportunities afforded by a scholarship. To do this, everyone involved in this dialogue, including the media that so cavalierly criticize the college athletics community for exploiting student athletes, have responsibilities to uphold.

If student athletes are to reap the rewards of their $830,000 contracts, the college athletics community must regain its focus regarding the importance of education as it applies to the long-term interests of student athletes. The onus is on the entire university community to begin to establish policy based on what is academically and socially best for student athletes for the next 50 years of their lives rather than what's best athletically for the next four. Our daily actions must show very clearly that educating student athletes is the primary purpose of an athletic department and that the true measure of an athlete's success hinges upon obtaining a degree. Providing a monthly stipend will last only a few days or weeks at best. A well-developed appreciation for learning and the value of a college degree will last a lifetime.

In short, we must teach our student athletes to fish so they can eat for a lifetime, not give them a fish so they can eat for a day.

The media and public have repeatedly called for stipends for student athletes. Such a position, however, undermines all efforts to emphasize the value of a quality education. Before calling for cash payments, members of the media must understand exactly what student athletes are receiving in real dollars, real support and real opportunity. The media must also assume responsibility for promoting the value of education and holding student athletes responsible for taking advantage of the opportunity they have been provided to earn a degree. Those who advocate paying stipends are every bit as guilty of "exploiting" student athletes as the coaches and athletic administrators at whom they point their fingers. If we want what is best for the student athlete, the long-term benefits of a quality education rather than short-term financial rewards must be emphasized at every opportunity.

Yes, student athletes at times have been exploited. But the NCAA has, over the past five years, been working diligently to more fully meet its responsibilities to provide student athletes an opportunity to earn a well-balanced academic, social and athletic experience. More work needs to be done, but real progress is being made. The college athletics community is doing its part ... now the media and public must do theirs. Calling for the payment of student athletes is not the answer - it only reinforces the myth that the road to economic and personal prosperity is best attained by chasing athletic fame, glory and financial reward rather than by obtaining a quality education.