10 Genuine Reasons why College Athletes Should be Paid

The argument for paying college athletes is no longer fringe. Following the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in NCAA v. Alston, which held that the NCAA’s restrictions on education-related benefits violated antitrust law, and the subsequent expansion of NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) rights, the legal and cultural landscape has shifted. But NIL rights are not the same as direct compensation, and for most college athletes — particularly those in non-revenue sports — they remain far from paid. Here are ten reasons the argument for paying college athletes remains strong.

1. College Sports Generate Billions in Revenue That Athletes Don’t Share

College football and men’s basketball alone generate well over $10 billion annually for universities, conferences, and the NCAA. The college football playoff, conference media rights deals (the SEC’s deal with ABC/ESPN is reportedly worth $3 billion over ten years), and March Madness (the NCAA’s media rights deal is worth approximately $1.1 billion per year) are large commercial enterprises. The athletes who produce this entertainment receive scholarships — valuable, but not a proportionate share of the revenue they generate.

2. Athletes Dedicate as Much Time as Full-Time Employees

Division I athletes in revenue sports routinely report spending 40 or more hours per week on athletic commitments: practice, film study, travel, games, conditioning, and mandatory team activities. This does not include class time, study obligations, or coursework. The time demand is equivalent to a full-time job, yet athletes are prohibited — under traditional NCAA rules — from receiving wages for that time. Framing this as an “amateur” arrangement when the time commitment is professional strains the definition.

3. Scholarships Don’t Cover the Full Cost of Attendance

Athletic scholarships cover tuition, room, board, and books — but not the full cost of attending college. Studies have consistently found that scholarship athletes at major programs face gaps of several thousand dollars per year in living expenses, transportation, personal expenses, and other costs that the scholarship does not address. Athletes from low-income households often have no means to cover those gaps, creating financial hardship that their teammates without financial need do not face.

4. Coaches and Administrators Are Paid Handsomely — Athletes Are Not

The head football coaches at flagship programs regularly earn $5 to $10 million per year. Athletic directors earn $1 to $3 million. Conference commissioners earn more. Facility directors, marketing staff, and sports medicine personnel are all paid market-rate salaries. The logic of market compensation governs everyone connected to college athletics except the athletes themselves — who generate the product that makes all those salaries possible.

5. Athletic Careers Are Short and Injuries Are Permanent

Division I athletes face significant injury risk, particularly in contact sports. A torn ACL, a career-ending shoulder injury, or a concussion at the college level does not come with workman’s compensation, long-term disability insurance, or the kind of structured injury protection that professional athletes negotiate through union contracts. An athlete who suffers a career-ending injury loses future earning potential in the sport without having earned anything in the present. The risk-bearing is borne entirely by the athlete; the financial upside is captured by the institution.

6. Paying Athletes Would Reduce Under-the-Table Payments

College athletics has a long, documented history of under-the-table payments to recruits — boosters funneling cash, benefits, and inducements to attract top athletes to specific programs. This has existed precisely because the official system prohibits compensation, creating an unofficial market where rules are enforced unevenly and athletes in the most exploitative programs benefit the least. Direct, transparent compensation would not eliminate corruption, but it would reduce the volume of it by removing the gap between what athletes are worth and what they are officially permitted to receive.

7. The One-and-Done Rule Exploits Athletes for Institutional Benefit

The NBA’s now-modified requirement that players be one year removed from high school before entering the draft (the “one-and-done” rule) effectively compelled top basketball talent to spend a year in college basketball before going professional. During that year, athletes generated significant revenue for universities while being prohibited from earning anything themselves. The players most affected were often those from low-income backgrounds for whom getting to the NBA was not just a career goal but a financial lifeline for their families. The arrangement served the NBA and the universities — not the athletes.

8. NIL Rights Alone Are Not Sufficient Compensation

The 2021 expansion of NIL rights was a meaningful reform, but it is not equivalent to direct compensation and it is not equitably distributed. Athletes at high-profile programs with large social media followings and strong national brands can earn significant NIL income. Athletes in non-revenue sports, at smaller programs, or without existing personal brands earn little to nothing from NIL. The result is that NIL has created a new tier of compensation inequality within college athletics — benefiting those who were already most advantaged — without addressing the underlying question of whether athletes in revenue-generating programs deserve a share of the revenue they produce.

9. Academic Obligations Are Real but Secondary for Revenue Athletes

The premise of the scholarship model is that athletes are students who happen to play sports, not athletes who happen to attend classes. In practice, for athletes in major revenue programs during their competitive seasons, athletic obligations routinely take priority over academic ones. Schedules are built around games, practices, and travel, not around academic calendars. Many athletes in revenue sports acknowledge that their education is secondary to their athletic responsibilities for most of their college careers. If the primary product an athlete provides is athletic, not academic, the compensation structure should reflect that honestly.

10. The Market Already Values These Athletes

The existence of NIL markets, the bidding for top recruits through collective agreements, and the transfer portal dynamics all demonstrate that a market for college athlete talent already exists. Restricting direct compensation does not eliminate this market — it suppresses the official version while allowing unofficial versions to flourish. The economic value of elite college athletes is not in dispute; the only question is whether they are entitled to capture a portion of it. On the basic principle that people should be compensated for the economic value they produce, the answer is yes.