Cliff Keen Arena- home of the Michigan Volleyball team. The view is from the Michigan Student Section
I recently had the opportunity to go to a Michigan Women’s Volleyball game vs. Eastern Michigan and a Michigan Men’s Soccer game vs. Bowling Green. Both games were exciting- Michigan Volleyball won in three straight sets, but unfortunately Michigan Soccer lost a nail biter 1-0. As I sat there at both events watching these teams both with the Block M on their jerseys representing Michigan, I wondered about what would happen if the NCAA decided athletes should be paid. Everyone likes to consider the major revenue sports like football and basketball in terms of paying athletes, but what would happen to the smaller revenue sports if the NCAA decides to pay it’s athletes, and what should happen? While Soccer and Volleyball charge $3.00-8.00 per game (depending on the seat) and make some money for concessions, these sports are very far away from what major sports like football and basketball make for the University of Michigan.
In class, we read an article from Charles Pierce of Grantland.com talking about the Ed O’ Bannon
Our very own Denard Robinson graced the cover of the popular college football video game “NCAA Football 14.” Unfortunately because of the O’Bannon case, it was the last college football video game made for the foreseeable future.
case, where former NCAA football players and basketball players sued because they were not compensated for their name, image, and likeness being used in things like video games. Unlike in football and basketball, there are no college volleyball video games or college soccer video games. And if you go check out Michigan’s official clothing retailer the MDen, they don’t sell a single soccer or volleyball jersey. The reason why there are no video games made based on these collegiate sports or why the University of Michigan chooses not to sell their jerseys is because there is little interest in these sports compared to basketball and football. This little interest correlates to minimal profits for the University (if any profits at all), and this is where paying these athletes in these particular sports becomes a problem. If the NCAA chooses to pay all of the athletes the same rate, it wouldn’t be fair to football players like Devin Gardner and Denard Robinson’s (whose #16 jersey is still surprisingly being sold even though he plays in the NFL now), because those two alone probably make the school more money then the entire soccer or volleyball teams.
However, if the NCAA decides to pay its football players and basketball players more money than the other sports like soccer and volleyball, then it would open itself to arguments of sexism and discrimination just because some of those non-revenue sports are women’s sports. I usually have an answer or opinion on everything, but I can’t see any good outcome coming out of a decision to pay NCAA athletes that is fair and appeases everyone. I think the only system that works is the one the NCAA uses now- the one where nobody is paid. While I think stupid NCAA rules limiting things like the amount of food athletes can eat should be replaced, part of what makes college athletics unique and different from the professional sports leagues is this principle of not paying it’s athletes. College athletes aren’t competing for the paycheck, they are competing for their teammates and to represent their school- in this case to represent Michigan. This aspect is what some of college sports’ most loyal fans (like me) value, and to start paying players in any sport would bring college athletics closer to the professional leagues. This would lead to the most passionate fans who pay thousands of dollars in parking, concessions, and ticket prices to slowly lose interest, and the University would slowly start to lose their money.
The mere concept of paying college athletes has loyal fans reacting like this.
The money is what drives everything in college athletics departments. Without the money made in football and basketball, non-revenue (or little-revenue) sports like soccer and volleyball wouldn’t exist. Since sports like soccer and volleyball barely make the University money (and most of the time the University loses money), the money needs to come from somewhere else to fund these teams, and the main source is the profits from football and basketball. Therefore, any decision to pay college athletes might have a trickle down effect and hurt these other sports like soccer and volleyball. It’s a difficult issue for sure, but until sports like soccer and volleyball start selling out in jersey sales and drawing tens of thousands of people to their games and thereby making the University money, the system in place right now of not paying any college athletes works the best.
Touchdown Theory 
This was an excellent post highlighting the pros and cons of paying college athletes. I agree that the system in place seems to be the best option for now, but am surprised that topic of athletic scholarships was not touched on, as it is a big part of the argument against paying NCAA athletes. One part that I disagree on, however, is the fact that fans would lose interest in collegiate sports if the players were starting to get payed; I believe students would still come watch, much like how avid sports fans go out to see their favorite teams play.
LikeLike
Thanks for offering your opinion. I agree that the students will come and watch, but they will lose the regular ticket payers like alumni and regular fans who pay thousands of dollars in ticket prices and parking alone. Athletic scholarships were not touched upon because it was a piece focusing on College Athletics and specifically the difference between major revenue sports like football and basketball and the other sports like soccer and volleyball. Whether you are in soccer, volleyball, football, or basketball, you are usually on scholarships if you are playing for the University of Michigan.
LikeLike