Not only do they miss class, but they are absent for nationally televised games that make a lot of money and receive millions of viewers, according to Marc Edelman in his article “21 Reasons Why Student-Athletes Are Employees and Should Be Allowed to Unionize.” Since student-athletes also bring in revenue for their team and college or university, especially in the championship games, those who debate in favor of paying them say the students could receive a small portion of the profits.
Yes, pay would vary, just as the universities with the more successful teams receive more television time or money than those with less successful teams.
Since we’re in the heart of March Madness, now is a great time to debate whether college student-athletes should be paid or not.
People who think college student-athletes should be paid often say the students’ names and images are used on products and in advertising, among other things, so they should receive some of the profits.
For example, the “Flutie effect” is used to describe a surge in college admission following a big sports win.
It’s named for Boston College quarterback Doug Flutie; he won the Heisman Trophy in 1984, and the College’s admissions rose significantly in subsequent years—though the extent of Flutie’s impact has been largely refuted by BC officials since then.
Scholarships often cover most of the student-athletes’ books and room expenses, but even few extra hundred dollars per year could compensate for the lack of time these students have to earn spending money at a regular part-time job, argues Harnett.
It’s also important to note that college student-athletes are not only a part of a sports team; they are a part of the college or university’s advertising team.
Instead, they go to the coaches, athletic directors, and some administrators, reports Edelman.
Student-athletes do not need to receive huge salaries like their coaches; rather, they could still be paid a reasonable amount relative to how much the program makes.