Should college athletes be paid?
By Tom Knecht
Sept 19, 2025
Then-Georgia, now-Miami quarterback Carson Beck with his $270,000 Lamborghini. Source: 247Sports
You might think this article is moot, and you’d probably be right. College athletes are getting paid, and there is likely no turning back. But that does not mean they should be paid.
To judge whether the recent turn in college sports has been a good or bad thing requires us to think well about the pros and cons of paying college athletes. I’ll summarize the best arguments for both sides before giving my view on the subject. Subsequent articles will discuss how and why we got to this point.
Background
The National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) is, or was, as the case may be, the governing body of most collegiate sports. Until recently, the only financial compensation college athletes received was a grant-in-aid scholarship. These one-year scholarships covered tuition, room and board, and books.
Under the old system, NCAA rules prohibited scholarship athletes from receiving money and gifts from their schools or boosters, working during the academic year, or profiting from their Name, Image, or Likeness (NIL). The prohibition against athletes’ use of their NIL meant they could not appear in advertisements, sell autographs or memorabilia, or receive royalties from television broadcasts or video games. Violating these rules meant ineligibility for the athlete and/or sanctions for the school.
A criticism of the grant-in-aid system is that colleges made a lot of money, yet athletes made nothing. In 2014, one of the last years of the old system, the median FBS program took in $86 million in revenue; its athletes received $0.
So, perhaps a better rewording of our question is: Should college athletes be paid, given the substantial revenue many colleges generate from sports?
The Argument for Not Paying College Athletes.
The student-athlete ideal. America is unique in the way it ties big-time athletics with education. The argument for the “school-sport” model is that it benefits…
The student-athlete. Sports teach lessons you won’t find in a classroom. A full-ride scholarship also allows student-athletes, many of whom would otherwise be unable to attend college, a chance to earn a degree.
The student body. For many students, attending sporting events and cheering for their team is as much a part of the college experience as dorm life or skipping their 8 a.m. Introduction to American Government class.
The alumni. Sports are one of the main ways alumni stay connected to their alma mater.
The college. College sports generate massive revenues from television, ticket sales, and merchandising. A successful athletic program also increases donations and enrollment (see the Doug Flutie and Deion Sanders effects).
Competitive balance. The old grant-in-aid system meant every school offered essentially the same scholarship. Because no school could outbid another for an athlete’s services, there was some semblance of competitive balance. That has changed as college sports have become a free market. For example, a program like Ohio State ($251 million in athletic revenue in 2019) can buy better players than Oregon State ($81 million in revenue). Currently, there is little to stop players from switching schools for more money. The result of this college free-agency is that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and fewer teams and games are competitive (see former Oklahoma State football coach Mike Gundy’s comments before Oregon drubbed them 69-3 in 2025).
Revenue. One of the arguments for paying players is that it is unfair for colleges to make so much money off sports, yet the athletes don’t get a dime. Proponents of the old grant-in-aid model argue that this claim is misleading on several fronts:
First, only a few athletic departments enjoy a positive net revenue. In 2019, only 25 of the 130 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) schools operated in the black, while all Division II and Division III schools ended up in the red. The idea that every college profits significantly from football and basketball is simply false.
Second, even the term “revenue” is misleading. People often think revenue means profit. It does not. NCAA institutions are non-profits (with the possible exception of Grand Canyon University), meaning they must reinvest their football and basketball revenue back into the school. In other words, this money is not going into the pockets of shareholders or the CEO.
Finally, much of the revenue generated by football and basketball pays for non-revenue-generating sports like golf, tennis, and swimming. Paying college football and basketball players means less money for these programs, which will ultimately lead to their demise. This trend may be especially devastating for women’s sports.
Fairness to other students: The “pay-the-athlete” side argues that full-ride scholarships are exploitative, given the billions of dollars colleges make off their efforts. But that must be a tough argument to swallow for most of the student body (or, as college athletes have taken to calling them, NARPs: Non-Athletic, Regular Person). The four-year sticker price is $180,000 for private colleges, $94,000 for out-of-state public schools, and $42,000 for in-state public schools. While few students pay full price, they do play a lot and leave college with an average of $30,000 in debt. As NARPs rack up debt, they must watch as athletes live in nicer dorms, eat better food, receive free books, get priority class registration, enjoy a lot of swag, and, most importantly, earn a degree without ever paying a dime.
Teamwork. Paying some players more than others can create jealousy and resentment in the locker room. Moreover, it is hard for a coach to build a team and develop talent if they lose a good chunk of their roster to the portal each year.
The Argument for Paying College Athletes
It is illegal not to. The best argument for paying college athletes is that it is against the law not to. As we will see in a subsequent post, U.S. law prohibits the formation of monopolies and the fixing of wages. Until recently, the NCAA failed on both accounts: it monopolized college athletics and fixed players’ salaries at $0. In Alston v. NCAA (2021), the Supreme Court ruled the NCAA violated antitrust laws. The 2025 House v. NCAA settlement allowed Division I schools to pay their athletes directly. Until the Supreme Court changes its mind (unlikely) or Congress acts to reverse the Court’s decision (also unlikely), paying college athletes will be legal.
Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL). Under the old grant-in-aid system, athletes could not profit from NIL deals. That meant student-athletes couldn’t (a) get paid to hawk products for companies like Dr. Pepper or State Farm, (b) sell their autograph or memorabilia, and (c) receive a cut of the massive television contracts or gate receipts. Meanwhile, the NCAA and its member institutions generated substantial revenue from athletes’ names, images, and likenesses. That hardly seems fair.
It is only fair that athletes share in the revenue. College football and basketball rake in billions of dollars, but there is no money without the athletes. These athletes deserve compensation, given their countless hours of training and the toll sports take on their bodies. Moreover, the “non-profit” argument presented by the other side is difficult to reconcile with the fact that the average Power Five football coach earns $6.2 million, and the NCAA president, Charlie Baker, makes $3.4 million a year.
Full cost of attendance. Before 2015, college scholarships covered tuition, books, housing, and three meals per day. That’s it. It did not cover other academic necessities, such as computers, musical instruments, or lab equipment. It also did not cover expenses that are generally incurred as part of normal college life, such as gas, laundry money, beer money, clothes, or late-night Taco Bell runs. Because college athletes had no way to make extra money—they were prohibited from working during the academic year or profiting from their NIL—many were forced to go without.
The Student-Athlete Nonsense. The noble-sounding phrase “student-athlete” has a rather ignoble beginning. In 1955, Fort Lewis A&M football player Ray Dennison died from injuries sustained in a game against Trinidad Junior College. His wife, Billie, filed a death benefits claim under Colorado workers’ compensation law, but the state refused to pay. In 1957, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against Billie Dennison, saying that football players were “student-athletes” and not college employees who would otherwise be eligible for benefits. The phrase caught on and was later used to deny insurance benefits to Kent Waldrep, a TCU running back who was paralyzed during a game in 1974.
My Take
There are strong arguments for and against paying college athletes, but there can be only one policy.
All things considered, I argue that college athletes should not be paid.
I love college sports, but I am afraid we are witnessing the beginning of their end. College sports, particularly football, have shifted from a monopoly controlled by the NCAA to a competitive market. In any competitive market, firms that cannot compete go out of business. The best football teams in the SEC and Big 10 are already buying up most of the talent, and we’re starting to see a commensurate decline in nearly everyone else’s competitiveness. Inevitably, fans of the “also-ran” teams will start to lose interest. I expect that many colleges will soon decide it isn’t worth having a football team that loses games and money.
27,143 fans watched UCLA’s 2022 home opener against Bowling Green. The Rose Bowl seats 90,000. Source: Jeff Wolfe and The New York Times.
The professionalization of college athletics also begs the question: Why even have college sports? College sports are increasingly becoming the minor leagues for the NFL, NBA, and MLB, and who cares about the minor leagues? Moreover, if college athletes are considered employees, why should they attend class? Colleges don’t make their other employees attend class. And if athletes don’t have to attend class, the connection between the athletic department and the college becomes purely financial, no different from Etihad Airways’ relationship with Manchester City.
I expect that college sports will continue to limp along for a while, purely out of sentimentality. However, I also expect the coming financial strain will lead many colleges to abandon, or at least reconsider, the school-sport model… but this is a subject for another post.
I say all of this with considerable reservations because the “pay the athletes” side makes some really strong points. I agree that, under current U.S. law, it is illegal to fix college athletes’ earning potential at $0. I also think the old grant-in-aid system was far too stingy. (As a full-ride scholarship athlete, I recall scouring the car floor for enough change to put just a gallon or two in the tank.) I’m sure that many (most?) colleges cared far more about the “athlete” part of the “student-athlete.” Finally, I think there might be some wisdom in totally abandoning the school-sport model—both K-12 and higher education—and moving to a European-style system where sports are played through private clubs.
Again, all of this is moot: college athletes are getting paid whether we like it or not. But I can’t help thinking the early 2020s marks the beginning of the end.
