Experts weigh in: should college athletes get paid?

Eight million Americans are tuning in to the NCAA basketball tournament this month. It's a time of school spirit, bracket bids and incredible athleticism.

The annual showcase of the country's top college basketball teams generates a lot of emotion among loyal fans — and millions of dollars for universities and TV networks nationwide.

Estimates suggest that the college sports industry makes on average $11 billion in revenue annually. This is typically distributed in part to NCAA executives, athletic directors and coaches in the form of a salary. 

The NCAA, however, prevents colleges from paying their athletes outside of scholarships — which includes tuition, books and board.

The high-powered antitrust attorney Jeffrey Kessler has now filed a class-action suit against the NCAA and the five richest college conferences. His suit is seeking to upend the league's limits on scholarship money, possibly paving the way for players to get paid.

Should student athletes be compensated?

Could compensation change the game for fans?

Would compensation take away from the academic side of being a college athlete?

We consulted a panel of three experts for the Inside Story.

Inside Story: What did you make of the Kessler lawsuit? Do you agree with this pursuit?

Kristi Dosh: I think the impact will vary a lot from school to school. The issue is, if we start paying them more than the cost of attendance, are they employees? They would not be amateur anymore and it could make schools lose their nonprofit status — and a lot of money in donations. I've spoken with people in the past who've said they make twice as much in donations as in TV revenue. There are concerns with how that plays out. The best model I’ve seen is the endorsement model of payment — but there are less legal and more competitive balance issues. 
 

As a sports fan, if Kessler is successful and college sports becomes something of a minor league, could this change the game for fans?

You know, I think the NCAA unfairly bears the brunt of the blame, when some of it should be on the NFL and the NBA. They have zero motivation to change and let people get drafted earlier because right now they are getting free training. The NCAA was never meant to go in the direction that college sports went. They never wanted to be a developmental ground. So we might need to look at the larger sports model and make sure college is not just a training ground for the pros.
 

What about the economics? Could Kessler's success hurt players or sports that wouldn’t make as much in a market model?

Sure, because with a high level of competition, schools have to carry a certain number of sports. I think you’d see a lot of sports cut more than you'd want them to because it may not make financial sense to carry the extra sports anymore. Most colleges are over the minimum limit because they’re using football and basketball to pay for the rest.

Inside Story: How could paying players change the game?

Barrett Sallee: People think paying players is simple, but there are a lot of hurdles. I think if we let them sell themselves, it would alleviate problems. It's not about being a man or woman or if they’re playing football or soccer, it’s about sports. If you have a star player, he or she will earn money.

Are we getting away from the "student" part of student athlete?

I think it'd be a problem if we let players sell themselves without oversight. If the NCAA regulates it and supervises them and puts money in a trust that the athletes can only get it upon graduating, it actually brings incentive to graduate. I think it would keep the amateur part of amateur athletics. It will give the students something to fall back on. The incentive would still be there to pursue the big bucks of the professional leagues. But I think if we go down that road, we could appease all parties. It would keep academic people happy.
 

If the lawsuit succeeds, how could it change the game for fans and viewers?

College athletics are really personal. People went to these schools, so they root for their teams. I don't think it would change all that much. Some players may act different and the rules may change. But really from a player perspective, they're still fighting for that NFL or NBA check. So from a fan perspective — it’s still dramatic and unrefined in the way people like. I think if you were watching a game from last year and from 10 years from now, it will look like the exact same game.

Inside Story: Briefly break down how Kessler's lawsuit could change the way money operates in the world of college sports.

Andrew Zimbalist: Assuming it's successful, it would revolutionize college sports. It would mean the leagues could no longer install caps. It would mean no rules to uphold amateurism because the practice becomes a free labor market. It would be subject to collective bargaining, like we're seeing attempted out of Northwestern. I think this would change the landscape.
 

Do you support Kessler’s lawsuit?

I think it’s complicated. The system is in need of reform. Now it's a hybrid between professional and amateur. It's also a system that creates inequalities and exploitation. Coaches are paid millions. Most earn more than a million in cash and perks. But the athletes aren’t being paid. The reason coaches get paid so much is that they’re recruiting the players even though those players don’t actually benefit financially. This needs to be changed. But I’m a college professor, and I believe in the mission of college sports as it originated: as a supplement to complement the educational mission of a school. Now it’s grown beyond that, and we’re left having to live in a charade to sustain the success of the current model.
 

Why aren’t scholarships, worth tens of thousands of dollars a year, seen as proper payment?

Well, we can make a simple calculation about how much players are worth. In professional sports, people on the field get 50 percent of the revenue generated. The star athlete might get 10 to 15 percent of the payroll. If we apply those norms to college teams, we could say the star quarterback for the University of Alabama is worth $4–5 million a year based on that. Plus, a large share of athletes don't graduate. Or they graduate without learning. So they're not even getting the value that's being alleged.