Over the years, there have been numerous reports of wealthy boosters paying kids to come to their alma mater so that their athletic programs will shine.
While this has put the chokehold on many athletic programs for their distant future, it begs the question: should the NCAA pay its athletes?
Many big time sports programs, such as University of Alabama football, or Indiana University basketball, greatly benefit from a revenue standpoint from their prestigious athletic program's successes. The kids in these programs commit hours of sweat and exhaustion into their teams, only to see their academics suffer, retire due to injuries or cause other personal issues. They fill the stands, only to risk their bodies and youth for a scholarship. For this reason, some people believe that NCAA athletes should be paid.
While there is no doubt that these athletes provide a recruitment plus as well as entertainment to their school, they are students first. The term student-athlete would be far less meaningful if they were getting paid on the side. For many college athletes, the sport they excel at is not their future. It is a means for them to get an education that they might not otherwise have been able to have.
Another factor in this conversation is that while there are the revenue-gaining programs previously mentioned, there are also teams and sports that are not bringing back as much money as the big time Division I programs in football and basketball. Giving out salaries would cut revenues, and even potentially put some sports out of money all together.
While it is not feasible for NCAA athletes to be paid under a free market system, potentially creating a system in which athletes can be given a stipend or be subsidized for their athletics is a much more viable possibility. That said, obviously the bigger, Division I schools would probably be given a greater allowance or stipend due to greater time commitments and also for providing more money for the school. The system could be such that each division could each have certain tiers at which they are to provide stipends.
This mechanism to provide extra spending money to college athletes, while still promoting academic achievement would ultimately be a more effective solution than either paying them in a free market or not at all. College athletics at any level are demanding (just ask the DePauw women's basketball team), and that should be taken into account. A stipend would help those athletes who needed extra money, but would not have the time to excel in academics with a part-time job on the side.
If each division had a ceiling at which they could give a stipend, no one school would be able to promote themselves over others for that reason. It could also hopefully detract boosters from illegally giving out money to athletes and damaging the reputations of both the colleges and athletes alike.
While providing a stipend is a slippery slope, it is the best option For us students at DePauw, it might even be a reason to keep the sports dream alive.
-Winkler is a senior economics major from Lake Forest, Ill.