Employing Student Athletes: A Nuisance or a Necessity?

In 1955, a football player in Colorado died from a head injury – one received from playing football. When his wife sued to receive compensation for his death, the NCAA created the term “student-athlete” to avoid paying the employment benefits he deserved.

Thus, with the dark history of student-athletes in mind, this ultimately begs the question: are student athletes a relic of the past, or are they a necessity for the future?

An argument for student athlete status

Many advocates of keeping student athlete status do not argue that compensation is necessarily a bad thing, rather, they argue that the process of doing so would wreak havoc.

First, they argue that it would drive a hike in tuition. Models predict that paying all student athletes employee wages would cost nearly 7 billion dollars for all colleges. More importantly, many athletic costs are subsidized by student fees. Given that nearly all athletic programs lose money year after year, an increase in athletic costs would reasonably increase tuition. Historically, studies that analyzed multiple DII schools found that an increase in stipends alone raised student fees by 7.4%.

Secondly, many believe that giving student athletes employee status would destroy college sports in and of themselves. Historically, when losing programs are pushed over the brink, they cut sports. For example, during COVID, the University of Minnesota cut 85% of their non-revenue producing black athlete roster. Thus, a reasonable argument is made that paying student athletes would hurt the ones that we try to help.

An argument for changing their status to employees

Proponents of employee status do not focus on monetary compensation as much, rather, the benefits of unionization that come with employment far outweigh. Though a world with student athlete employment is filled with uncertainty, many legal authorities suggest athletes would have the ability to unionize, whether that be from team to team, school to school, sport to sport, or the entire NCAA itself. 

More importantly than the right to unionize, are the potential implications. For example, athletes could unionize to form coalitions and collective bargaining agreements that promote more education within their institutions, as only roughly 2% of college athletes will ever play professionally.

Moreover, athletes could unionize to create resistance against sexual harassment. In institutions such as the University of Michigan, 40% of the athletes harassed were black men. However, with employee status, athletes have a better legal standing in court, have access to better discrimination agencies, and a changed relationship with their coach.

The Solution

Ultimately, employee status could be the solution that solves many problems for athletes. However, it is important to recognize the ever-changing landscape of the NCAA and uncertainty surrounding the matter of college athletic employment. Thus, it is impossible to make a definitive policy change and determine whether or not student athletes should be considered employees or not, as it could either mean the beginning of a new NCAA, or the end of the NCAA as we very know it.