Gleason 1

Brendan Gleason

Dr. McLaughlin

Multimedia Writing and Rhetoric

24 November 2015

The Business of College Football: Why Not to Pay the “Employees”

The very first coast-to-coast broadcast of college football occurred on October 6, 1951

and since then, the world of college football has been forever changed (Lawrence 80). Gone are

the days of college football being solely a sport, a hobby for college males between the ages of

18 and 22, because since that day in 1951 the sport of college football has been an ever evolving,

major revenue collecting business. Not to say college football wasn’t a business before the first

nation-wide broadcast, but before television became a major part of college football, the

institutions were much less concerned with collecting revenue from the sport. As the business

continues to develop year by year, there is one major question that remains in debate: should

college football players be paid for playing the role of “employees” to the business of college

football? As the NCAA states, “no student shall represent a college or university… who is paid

to play in, or enter any athletic contest” (Lawrence 155). That eligibility rule was written back in

1906, and was upheld until 2014, when the NCAA voted “to allow 65 teams from the so-called

Big 5 power conferences… to make their own rules” (“Some College Athletes”). This is a

change that is a move in the wrong direction for the NCAA. No matter how large the business of

college football grows to be, the NCAA should not deviate far from their roots, because the

further they do, the closer college football moves towards becoming a professional league.

College football is not meant to turn the players into millionaire celebrities, but rather to provide

them with an education along with an opportunity to grow as a football player. As the NCAA

Gleason 2

allows schools to pay their players more money, the focus on the education will diminish, and

the focus on making money and playing football will prevail. In order to prevent this from

happening, the NCAA should stick to its roots, and should not allow college football players to

be paid to play.

As mentioned above, college football is evolving with each passing year, becoming more

and more of a business, and less of an American pastime. The television contracts connected to

the sport continue to grow as fans’ interest in watching college football grow, which creates a

growing intake of money by the NCAA and the institutions of major college football teams.

Between the years of 2012 and 2027, there is an agreement in which the various television

stations that broadcast college football will pay $25.5 billion in rights fees to college conferences

and their member schools over those 15 years (Bachman and Futterman). In order to get the

most they possibly can out of the television companies and pulling in the maximum revenue,

schools are “playing more games, jumping to new conferences, and abandoning long-standing

rivalries” (Bachman and Futterman). For example, in 2014 Notre Dame, who had been an

Independent college football team for their entire existence, became a partial member of the

Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), agreeing to play a certain number of games each year against

ACC teams. In making this agreement, Notre Dame had to abandon some of the major,

traditional rivalry games that they played every year, such as games against Michigan and

Michigan State. As seen here, schools are now abandoning their roots, going against tradition,

all in order to maximize the intake of money, because the business of college football is more

important than the culture of the history of the sport.

In addition to changing schedules and realigning conferences, college football programs

are beginning to construct some of the biggest television contracts in the network of multimedia.

Gleason 3

For example, Notre Dame has not only joined the Atlantic Coast Conference and increased their

revenue, but they also hold one of the largest college football television contracts in the nation.

Back in 1991, Notre Dame and NBC agreed upon a deal in which the Irish were paid $1.2

million in television earnings per game (Jones). Soon to follow would be other big name

programs and conferences, attempting to find their “pot of gold” in the television industry

(Jones). By the time 2010 rolled around, the top five earning college football programs in the

country were pulling in more than $1 billion in profits for the year (Jones). Not only do the top

programs compete with each other on the field, but they are also competing in the business

world. A greater revenue intake leads to more spending money on the program, which means

those top teams can attract the top recruits, which will in turn lead to success on the field. The

college football business is a well-oiled machine that brings in more money than they know what

to do with, so why not take some of that money and pay their players?

If programs were to begin paying their college football players, the sport would be

forever changed and would never return to the status that it currently holds. As is, college

football has become such a large entity that the players have turned into celebrities that can be

seen on television, in magazines, and all over the media, but that does not mean they should be

paid. There already are paid football players, and those are professional NFL players. There

already exists a league where the players get paid to play the game of football. If the NCAA

were to begin paying college football players to play the sport of football, they would be creating

another, separate professional football league. The NCAA would be eliminating the amateur

status of those players, and therefore they would basically be melding the world of the NFL and

the world of college football together into one.

Gleason 4

Although both the college game and the professional game have a lot in common, there

are also many differences between the two leagues, and that is why each has its own set of fans.

Some football fans prefer the college game, and others prefer the professional game, and by

paying college football players, the NCAA would risk losing the very reason that many people

enjoy being a fan of college football. College football is all about the traditions and cultures that

surround the team as a whole, rather than the singular player (“Paying Athletes Jeopardizes”).

People enjoy watching and being fans of college football because the players play for more than

just the paycheck. The players play for the pride of their institution; they play to win the game,

rather than just playing to make money. If the players were to get paid, it would make it more

challenging for them to focus on the team first mentality that so many college players have,

because they would be more focused on the fact that at the end of the day, they will be receiving

their thousands of dollars whether they win or lose (“Paying Athletes Jeopardizes”).

Another reason why so many people enjoy the sport of college football is because they

like to see the small name, Cinderella teams upset the big name college football teams (“Paying

Athletes Jeopardizes”). Fans like to root for the underdogs and seeing them prevail, but if

college teams were to be allowed to pay their players, the big name teams would be able to

“distance themselves from the smaller ones” (“Paying Athletes Jeopardizes”). Those big schools

who collect large sums of revenue from college football would be able to pay their players more

than the smaller schools, which would change the recruitment of college athletes completely.

Recruits would begin to choose schools based on which program would pay them the most

money, rather than making their school decision based on all the different attributes that different

schools possess (“Paying Athletes Jeopardizes”). This is very similar to the ways in which NFL

players negotiate contracts, with players usually choosing to play for the team that offers them

Gleason 5

the most money. Paying college football players would slowly morph student athletes into

professional athletes, and the two leagues would become one in the same.

The fact of the matter is that college football players do not need to be paid more money

to play because they already are being paid to play in the form of a free college education.

Division 1 college football teams have the ability of offering 85 full athletic scholarships to

student athletes. According to James Ronan, those scholarships can be valued at up to $75,000

at institutions such as Notre Dame, Boston College, Stanford, USC, and the University of Florida

(Johnson et al.). Over the four years a college football player would spend at their school of

choice, the value of their education could be upwards to $300,000, and those student athletes are

getting that for free. Not only are they getting to play college football for their institution for

free, but they are also getting a top-notch education that can put them in a position to succeed for

the rest of their lives. For 98% of all division 1 college football players, their dreams of playing

in the NFL will never come true, but because of the education they get, for free, those student

athletes can go on to become successful individuals in the workforce (Johnson et al.). This top

notch college education is something that many individuals in this world would kill to have, but

these college football players are getting it for free. They do not need more money from the

schools, what they need is an appreciation for what they are already receiving.

While college football is the most popular and profitable collegiate sport, that does not

mean universities can place higher value on college football, and provide more funding to

college football to the exclusion of other sports. As Wayne S. Kreger states, “under Title IX of

the U.S. Code, all collegiate institutions… must apply equal funding and support to men’s and

women’s athletics” (Johnson et al.). This means that for every dollar that university chooses to

spend on college football, they must offset that dollar with funding for another women's sport.

Gleason 6

This would mean that all the money the university would spend to pay their college football

players, they would also need to spend that money on a separate women’s sport. College

football is one of the only sports that actually generates a profit for these universities, so it would

be really hard for those universities to justify spending even more money on some of the smaller

women’s sports that may not bring in a profit at all. This is just another problem that would arise

from paying college football players, and a problem that could be avoided altogether by not

paying students athletes to play their sports.

On the other hand, many people make the argument that college football players do

indeed deserve to be paid, and paid even more than the small stipend the big time schools are

now allowed to pay their players. These people make the argument that due to the celebrity

status of these college football players, they deserve to be compensated for the business they

bring to their university. That celebrity status in turn leads to an increase in sales of the jerseys

associated with those players, but without the players receiving any money for their likeness as

an individual (Navarrette). What that argument fails to realize is that the players are receiving

benefits from those jersey sales, but it just is not a direct payment. Those players get to go to

college for free, have the benefit of additional academic support, travel around the country

playing games, and receive issued clothing, all in return for playing a game they love, college

football. Sure, the student athletes are “the ones selling out stadiums, selling merchandise, and

generating millions of dollars for their respective universities,” (Navarrette) but those

universities in turn are providing the athletes with an opportunity to receive a top of the line

college education that will set them up for many years of success down the road. The value of

the education these universities provide far exceeds the value of any amount of money those

schools could pay their college football players for the years they play at the university.

Gleason 7

While the sport of college football has evolved over the years into a major business, the

NCAA eligibility rule should not have changed, and the student athletes should not be allowed to

play for pay. The players are already receiving so many benefits from the schools that adding a

monetary benefit in addition will surely corrupt the sport of college football. The tradition that

surrounds the sport of college football would slowly diminish, until college football virtually

becomes identical to professional football, and the student athlete is no more. If the fans of

college football want to preserve the sport they love, the NCAA must stand strong with their

policy, and not allow college football players to be paid to play.

Gleason 8

Works Cited

Bachman, Rachel, and Matthew Futterman. "College Football's Big-Money, Big-Risk Business

Model." Wall Street Journal [New York, N.Y.] 10 Dec. 2012: B.1. Print.

Johnson, Richard G., Ronan, James, Kreger, Wayne S., Krisinger, Josh. "Paying the Few Elite

College Footballers Is a Fumble." Wall Street Journal [New York, N.Y.] 06 Feb. 2014:

A.16. Print.

Jones, Noval. "Big Time College Football: Money for Nothing, Labor for Free." The

Jacksonville Free Press [Jacksonville, Fla.] 15 Sept. 2011: 4. Print.

Lawrence, Paul R. Unsportsmanlike Conduct : The National Collegiate Athletic Association and

the Business of College Football. New York: Praeger, 1987. Print.

Navarette, Johnny. "College Football Players Deserve Pay." University Wire [Carlsbad] 07 Apr.

2014: University Wire, Apr 7, 2014. Print.

"Paying Athletes Jeopardizes College Football's Integrity." University Wire[Carlsbad] 24 Sept.

2014: 24. Print.

"Some College Athletes Will Now Get Paid-a Little." Time. Time, 7 Aug. 2014. Web. 22 Nov.

2015.