To pay or not to pay

An athlete sweats for three hours a day on the practice field, grabs a quick shower and a bite to eat, then pores over his books for a few hours every day so he doesn't get behind. He readies for a game that will mean ecstasy or heartbreak depending on the outcome. In the few hours he has free, it's understandable that he may want to get off campus and relax, perhaps to join his friends for a meal or a movie.

For a few athletes, however, this typical college night out on the town is not feasible. Due to National Collegiate Athletic Association regulations, athletes who receive a full scholarship are prohibited from working during the school year. Therefore, those athletes who come from disadvantaged backgrounds often find themselves in a precarious position-wanting to do things that a normal student does, but being prohibited from earning any extra spending money to do so.

The debate over paying athletes has raged on for years in colleges, universities, athletic conferences and the NCAA. Sorting through the mechanics of finding a workable solution, however, is no easy task, however. Opinion varies from keeping the status quo to paying athletes stipends regardless of need. While the 'right' answer probably lies somewhere in the middle, the groups involved do not seem to be agreeing on the concept anytime soon.

The no-work rule was not intended to prevent athletes from paying small bills or having a little extra spending money; it was passed for the same reason as most NCAA rules are-to stop unethical practices from continuing. In days before the athletes were prevented from working, it was not uncommon for rich alumni to 'hire' an athlete and pay him an outlandish amount of money for a menial task. As the practice got increasingly out of hand, the NCAA eventually banned working during the school year altogether.

"We'd have to constantly check to make sure that the student is making what the normal pay is for that job," Duke associate athletic director Joe Alleva says of any changes which might allow athletes to hold jobs. "Back in the old days, you would get a job turning on the lights in a gym-I'm serious-and [a booster] would pay you a bunch of money to do that."

Alleva also cites time constraints on the athletes as another reason for outlawing jobs. Varsity athletes spend hours each week training, practicing, lifting weights, reviewing game tape and innumerable other small things to prepare for competition, not to mention the hours spent in the library or otherwise working on academic projects.

"I find it hard to believe that you'd be able to compete as a Division I athlete, maintain good grades, have a social life and also be able to work a job," says junior Tyish Hall, a member of the women's basketball team. "I mean, even if you knock out the social life part of it, it's still going to be hard to have a job and maintain the other two."

These athletes probably do spend more time in training or in competition than most other students do with extracurricular activities, yet receive no additional money for it. How can athletes be expected to keep a job if they spend over 40 hours a week during their respective seasons with their sports?

"I think it's probably better here than a lot of places, just because this institution tends to draw-and this is a very general statement-tends to draw kids that come from families with a little bit higher income," Alleva explains. "I would think it's probably more of a problem at some state institutions, where the kids are coming from much lower economic backgrounds. That may not be true. The other side of the coin is that kids have to pay more money to go here."

The NCAA has more stringent requirements on athletes' financial aid than regular students are held to, so athletes who receive full-time scholarships often receive little additional money, as well as being restricted from working.

"In reality, the financial aid office is allowed to include more things in their determination of the cost of an education than the NCAA allows you to count in the cost of an education," Alleva says. "For example, the financial aid office accounts into it trips back and forth to home, where the NCAA doesn't allow you to count that as a cost of your education."

Pell grants are available for all athletes, and those who are on a full scholarship are allowed to apply for these grants, but even with this source of money, some say there isn't enough.

"The Pell grants take care of a certain amount of bills," University of Maryland men's basketball head coach Gary Williams says, "but at the same time a lot of kids that don't have a lot of money do not qualify for Pell grants. There's a lot of kids that fall between the lines that don't have much money that don't receive Pell grant money."

Although many athletes and other students in need do receive grants, without any additional source of income, many of the athletes are left out in the cold when it comes to covering the normal expenses of college students.

"I know of people who it's an inconvenience for not to be able to make any cash on the side," senior women's basketball player Alison Day says. "To be able to pay your phone bill, for instance, or to have spending money to be able to go out to dinner every once in a while and things like that. You have to make copies and get stuff for class. That's not part of your scholarship, but for a lot of people their scholarship is all they have."

Which for some, translates into a responsibility to pay college athletes for their services to the university.

"I certainly think that players should have accessibility to funds that can help support them based within the needs that they have for those funds," says Florida State men's basketball head coach Pat Kennedy. "We need to get our heads out of the sand. We need to get over the hill of the Ice Age and realize the billions of dollars that are out there that are generated by college athletics and support the entire NCAA. That [money] puts a lot of people in ivory houses. It's got to come back to the people who are doing the work, and those are the athletes."

The athletes give countless hours of time, effort and sometimes even hours of pain to the school as competitors. In return, the university pays the athlete a scholarship, which covers tuition, room, board books and various fees. But do the schools owe something else to these athletes? Should athletic departments give stipends to athletes?

"We administer to the athletes psychologically, supposedly, we administer to them academically, supposedly, socially, supposedly and I think it should go into the financial realm as well," says Wake Forest men's basketball coach Dave Odom. "...There's enough money there that we can be doing more for our student athletes."

Even if all the parties involved could agree that athletes deserve some sort of compensation, the issue would still be far from settled. Some advocates of paying athletes say that they should only be given money if need is shown.

"I think that we need to look at the welfare of the student athlete on an individual basis," Odom says. "There are certain student athletes that have very special needs from a financial standpoint as well as a personal standpoint.... I've got three players, probably, on my team right now, I've had several in the past-and I know we're no different than any other team in this league-that need special help. They need the ability to get more than their family can provide for them and more than the federal government is willing to help them with through the Pell grants. We need the ability to be able to help them."

Several of Odom's peers in the Atlantic Coast Conference agree with the necessity of need-based funding for athletes. But, as with any controversial issue, there will be just as many plans to solve the problem as there are people who discuss it.

"I certainly think that players should have accessibility to funds that can help support them based within the needs that they have for those funds," FSU's Kennedy says. "...You can call it a stipend, you can call it a needy fund, but for those individuals who do not have finances for the normal needs that they have, I think those need to be met."

Maryland's Williams says he would support a need-based system, emphasizing that 'normal' students often receive such money already. "I wouldn't mind seeing it based on financial need," he says. "In other words, you have a scholarship like it is, and then the other things-clothing allowance, transportation allowance-all those things based on financial need. There are a lot of students on every campus that receive more money because they have none at home. We wouldn't be doing anything else with the student athletes that isn't done already."

Some proponents of paying athletes believe that it would help to stop the scores of underclassmen that leave college early to enter the professional ranks. While this trend is nothing new, it has certainly been more noticeable in the past few years, since four out of the top five picks in the 1995 National Basketball Association draft still had one or two years of eligibility left at their respective schools. (Kevin Garnett, the lone exception, left after his senior year of high school to head to the pros.)

Some coaches also believe that stipends would give athletes enough money to be able to stay in school and say no to illegal handouts from professional agents.

"We can put a dent in the greatest cancer we have," Kennedy explains, "and that is agents and runners catering to these kids and literally buying them out from underneath us during the course of their collegiate careers."

Those athletes who are projected as probable stars are already eligible to take out an insurance policy on future earnings in a professional league to guard against any injuries they might incur. While these policies might ensure an income for these athletes in case of accidents, several coaches feel that there is still a need to provide money to these aid-worthy athletes during their college years.

"[The need-based] money should also extend to those student athletes who are projected [to enter the professional ranks]," Kennedy says.

Indeed, it is these future stars that may be of greatest concern, for in terms of equity, they seem to be in the most precarious position. Anyone can walk into a sporting goods store in the area and buy a Blue Devil jersey not only with the Duke logo on it, but also a specific player's number. Sure, Grant Hill's name isn't on those number 33 jerseys. But nearly everyone who ever watched Hill play knew that he wore number 33. While still in college, should superstars such as Hill receive some of that money generated by the countless people walking around this country wearing his number?

Duke head coach Mike Krzyzewski has a million-dollar deal with Nike, hence the 'swooshes' on several visible parts of the Blue Devils' uniforms. But instead of the players-who are literally the ones doing the advertising for Nike-receiving any money, it all goes to Coach K, who appears on the sidelines in a suit instead of in visible Nike apparel.

Dean Smith, the long-time coach at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says that the individual athletes don't make the money for the schools, but also admits that coaches are overpaid.

"If North Carolina and Duke played and all of a sudden we had our [junior varsity players] out there, there would still be tremendous enthusiasm about the outcome," Smith hypothesizes. "So it isn't like a player coming in makes the money. The money made in North Carolina and Duke is a huge amount of money in basketball, and fortunately we give it to the other sports. There are 26 other sports, men's and women's, that benefit from that money. Coaches are overpaid, but I'm sure coaches do their best to give it back."

Even athletes differ on the possibility of getting a share of the endorsement contracts.

Day claims that although the team advertises for certain companies, the players receive the warm-ups and tennis shoes free from the company and extra compensation is not necessary.

"I don't really have a problem with the coach getting money [from endorsement contracts] or whatever, but I think we should get a piece of it," says sophomore Corey Thomas, a wide receiver on the Blue Devil football team. "They can sell our jerseys in the store and all this and that, and everybody's getting a piece of the money but us. We're the ones sitting here suffering because we don't have anything to show for it."

As perhaps Duke's strongest proponent of paying collegiate athletes, Thomas's statement strikes at the core of the issue. But it broaches even larger questions, for instance, where is the line drawn between meeting these athletes' needs and turning collegiate athletics into nothing more than a semi-professional league?

"I think it's a really sticky situation because I definitely don't think athletes should get paid to play," Day says. "It would be nice if athletes could get a little bit of money, like spending money, but the thing is that unfortunately there are going to be schools that abuse that. Because there's maybe one or two schools, even if it's just one or two that abuse that, it ruins it for everybody.

"That's what the problem is. I think the NCAA is not able to say, 'OK, well, you can pay your athletes so much money,' because that's going to give programs that maybe are a little bit dishonest a way to get through some loopholes, and offer recruits a lot of money if they come."

Alleva agrees with Day's belief that athletes shouldn't be paid, especially in light of the fact that the athletes receive a full scholarship from the college.

"There are no easy answers," Alleva says. "I'm not in favor of paying athletes... I feel really bad for the athletes that come and don't have anything but the clothes on their back to wear. We've had some come that didn't have any blankets or didn't have stuff for their room or anything. So I really feel bad for them.

"But on the other hand, I feel bad for the regular student that has nothing. There are a lot of regular students that are working their way through and don't have a whole lot either. What we're giving the athletes, particularly the full-scholarship athletes, is a whole lot more than a lot of regular students get who don't have anything."

Despite the extreme logistical nightmare that any system of paying athletes extra money would cause, some, like Thomas, assert that it would be worth the trouble.

"I feel like we should be [paid]," Thomas says bluntly. "We don't have extra spending change when we want to go out or whatever. We just don't have the money; we can't work... I don't think it's possible to play football, go to school and have a job. It's tough doing it like it is now... It's not that we want to be lazy and want to be given everything, it's just that we can't do it. I call football a job. I go out there every day and work hard. Why shouldn't we get paid for it?"

While Thomas's views are probably among the more radical of opinions, since he favors paying the athletes the same amount of money regardless of need, many of the coaches would support a need-based system of payment.

"I think the NCAA is more sensitive to [athletes' needs for additional money] now than they were, and if stipends on a monthly basis is the way that they should go, then I would support that wholeheartedly," Wake Forest's Odom says. "I do think that every student athlete that needs help needs to prove their need, but I think it's incumbent upon the conference and upon the schools themselves to help them prove it."

There are also issues raised from the notion of helping out athletes: Normal everyday expenses are one thing, but what about allowing the universities to provide travel money for parents to see a senior's last game, or for other special situations?

"I would like to see [an athlete's] parents to be able to attend tournament games if the team is fortunate enough to make the tournament at the end of the season," Williams argues. "That way you're not putting discussion of income into the hands of the students, but you're giving them a chance to have some things that most of the other students do have on campus."

Those in favor see a need for additional money for certain athletes, despite the Pell grants and other sources currently available to the athletes.

"It would be an extension of [Pell grants and the NCAA emergency fund]," Kennedy says. "It would be more than what's currently available to the youngsters. Are all the athletes' different expenses [currently] being covered? No."

The issue of paying athletes to play is one that will perennially surface as long as there are athletes who cannot meet the expenses they have as normal students, yet see professional athletes, not much older than them, making millions. While athletes do sacrifice thousands of hours for their sport over the course of their collegiate careers, they are, in one sense, paid for it. At a school like Duke, where a full scholarship is worth nearly $100,000, these athletes essentially are being paid for their hours of work. All athletes need not receive additional money for something they are already being paid to do.

Collegiate athletics is one of the last few amateur arenas for athletes. Now, the Olympics even admit professional athletes. Despite the outrageous television contracts and millions of dollars which are spent on collegiate athletics, it is, above all, still a game. The widespread payment of athletes would result in little more than destroying the hope our nation has for athletic competition at its purest level, a level at which the participants play the game for one reason-because they love the sport.