To Pay or not to Pay, that is the question

The debate continues as to whether or not student athletes should get a "living" stipend.

By: Brett Sebastian

Posted: 6/24/09

Housing, tuition, books and almost every collegiate expense one can think of are included in a full-ride athletic scholarship, everything except one noticeable expense: living. Food, gas and going-out money are all not factored into the typical scholarship. With all their time going into practice, workouts, meetings, games and class, an athlete holding down a part-time job isn't feasible.

Most of the time athletes can manage to squeeze by, but sometimes the circumstances become enough to push athletes to desperate measures. Many Aggie athletes also have children and other adult responsibilities that their scholarships don't cover. A number of athletes throughout the nation take under-the-table payments and gifts that go against NCAA rules. It is also important to remember that many athletes come from poor backgrounds and money is tight for them and their families, regardless of scholarships.

Paying student athletes brings an image of athletes cashing a check, or even worse, making more than their teammates based on performance on the field. Images of boosters and powerful schools backing dump trucks of money to the best high school athletes to get them to sign with their school can't help but be thought up.

However, paying a student athlete would be a much cleaner process than many think. The addition of a "living expenses stipend" isn't unreasonable and would be highly regulated by the NCAA and universities to prevent illegal actions, corruption or payment differences between athletes or different programs.

It isn't like the major universities don't have the extra money to make such living expense attachments a reality. In 2004-2005 Texas A&M made over $5 million in athletic profit. With a living scholarship of $2,000 per year, the total cost for A&M's nearly 650 student athletes would be just over $1 million. For a school that commands over $64 million in total revenue a year and has the ability to construct multi-million dollar basketball practice facilities with only days of notice, this isn't unreasonable.

The only issue with a stipend is fairness. The top 10 profit gainers for athletics reads like a who's who list of powerful state schools. Texas A&M, Michigan, Texas, Georgia and other schools of that nature may be able to afford such a cost, but smaller schools have thin margins and the extra cost of a stipend would require cutbacks at another location.

Whereas Texas led the Big 12 in total profit with over $7 million, Iowa State made a total profit of a little over half a million; and Iowa State is a major BCS school. Small schools especially at the Div.-II and Div.-III level would be hard hit. Equality would be hard hit, and the major state and private schools with huge endowments, sponsorships and other cash cows would have a marked advantage over the little guys.

Then again, the NCAA has had little interest in fairness, with such institutions as the BCS and disproportionate TV time and exposure for the major schools and conferences among other things. The NCAA embraces neither fairness nor the vast sums of cash they get every year, choosing instead to live in a middle ground of hypocrisy.

Condemning universities for rules violations and promoting the equality of all student athletes while selling TV rights to major conferences for billions and setting up an environment for the already wealthy schools to make much more off the hard work of student athletes isn't exactly an equal system. The trade off is a free education, which is all well and good, but at the cost of little to no personal funds and a strict rule book keeping athletes from making potential income off such deals as sponsorships.

None of this factors in the fact that many athletes chose to forego their degree and declare for the pros. For every college junior who makes millions, many more fall through the cracks. With the controversial NBA rule requiring one year between high school and the pros, many basketball players are more willing to go overseas to make their paychecks than take a year in college.

If the NCAA wishes to walk the line in the middle, choosing neither side, then it might consider loosening its rulebook. Obvious offenses like cheating and having boosters pay athletes would be enforced, but if a student athlete were offered a sponsorship of some kind then they should have all the right to take it; they are adults, after all. A&M enjoys a lucrative sponsorship by Adidas and sells ads at football and basketball games. Even schools like New Mexico and San Diego State enjoy sponsorships from such academically pertinent institutions as casinos. The A&M archery team, which isn't subject to NCAA rules, has athletes who enjoy sponsorships. The extra cash and equipment hasn't diminished the scholastic and on-the-field prowess of that team. How bad would it really be if the Aggie tennis team took up sponsorship or if the track team had an Adidas scholarship the athletes themselves could enjoy?

At the end of the day it comes down to practicality. A stipend or compensation would be nice, and in some cases might even encourage an athlete to stay all four years. Still, only a handful of schools could actually afford the added expense. Regardless, as pros make millions and amateur athletes become more and more like professionals themselves, the debate will continue.