College Football: An Economic Analysis

College athletic programs are among the most popular sporting events in America. With this rise in popularity, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its colleges have also seen a rise in revenue in recent years. In 2014, the NCAA made over 900 million dollars in revenue. Some collegiate coaches, such as Kentucky’s John Calipari, have yearly salaries in the millions, not counting incentives and endorsement deals. While, clearly, money is being made, NCAA regulations ban collegiate athletes from being paid. Many question this rule and argue that athletes at the college level earn and deserve pay for play. The debate to pay or not to pay college athletes rages on despite the latest court ruling supporting NCAA policies. Because colleges and universities earn such a profit from sporting events, many fans feel it is only fair to distribute some of the wealth to the players. Supporters of paying student athletes feel that these young men and women should be fairly compensated for the time demanded of the athletes and the stress put on the athletes, physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially. Those in favor of paying college athletes contend that athletic and academic work ethic at both high school and collegiate levels will improve, as well as, fiscal responsibility in these young adults. The NCAA argues that paying athletes would negatively affect their

Whether or not student-athletes should be paid has been a hotly debated topic since the 1900s. College athletes spend just as much time, if not more time, practicing and devoting time and energy to sports as they do academics. For this, many athletes are rewarded with scholarship money. However, many people believe it is not enough. Should we pay student-athletes a slice of the wealth or is a full-ride scholarship enough? (Business Insider). What if the athlete gets injured? Where does the money come out of to support each athlete’s salary? The huge amount of money being generated from college sports has led some people to think that the athletes are entitled to some of that revenue. While, some think that student-athletes should be paid, others disagree for various reasons.

The popularity of college sports has risen tremendously throughout the years amongst Americans. The passion to watch college basketball, football, baseball, and other sports has generated billions of dollars to the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) and to various athletic programs throughout America. Even though, colleges are raking in millions of dollars from their sports teams. “Last year 's National Collegiate Athletic Association ("NCAA") basketball tournament generated over $70 million in gross receipts” (Goldman).The NCAA prohibits payments, beyond educational scholarships, to athletes who are the source of these revenues. College athletes spend countless number of hours in their sport every day by attending long and tiresome practices, workout sessions, and film sessions whilst balancing their academics, but do not receive any payment for their efforts. Athletes are putting their lives and careers in danger during practices and games by being vulnerable to any type of injury that might end their careers, and many of these athletes are not provided any type of medical insurance to fund their injuries. Colleges need to realize that athletes often feel exploited because while they generate revenues, they are scrounging to meet their basic necessities and sacrificing their academic and professional careers. Many college athletes, professional lawyers, and sports analysts have taken various initiatives to help

College sports can determine a person’s lifestyle. Determines whether or not they can go pro or get a job. Paying athletes can give them a better sense of money. They can learn how to save their money up, learn how to spend it correctly, and a great sense of financial awareness. The problem is that many

Every Saturday during the fall season, everyone will tune into watch the coveted college football games. Watching The Ohio State Buckeyes or The Notre Dame Fighting Irish, battle on the field to see who is the true victor. But no one every truly ask what the money is behind the programs. The Ohio State Football teams annual cost is $34,026,871 while the whole university annual budget is $5.7 Billon (). Just the football team is .59% of all the budget, even though this seems like a very minimal number it is quite huge mathematically. If the college would choose to make budget cuts the odds of the program being cut are so minimal, they would rather cut the English department even though it is way less beneficial for the college. College football is one of the few varsity level sports that all colleges have, most sports programs a black-holes money wise. Sucking in vigorous amount of funds while returning little to none. In 2014 out of the 130 DI Football teams only 24 teams actually made a profit from the sport (). Football being the number one sport in most colleges. The bigger the school the more money it will be able to produce from the football team but this is very rare. The whole subject about why college sports are even a thing is very controversial. One has to truly look at if the whole athletic programs are truly worth it. College athletic programs are very controversial and should be cut in some schools. College athletic programs cost way too much, are rarely

“Likewise, almost all NCAA championships “lose money.” However, overall NCAA revenue, primarily derived from the Association’s media agreements and the popularity of the Division I Men’s Basketball Championship, helps 400,000 student-athletes at more than 1,000 member institutions learn and compete in 23 sports and 88 national championships” (NCAA 2).  Most colleges typically lose money on most of their sporting teams, and with the income from the few sport teams they are able to provide for other students.  Since a lot of colleges are losing money in the industry, they wouldn't be able to pay the athletes if they don't generate revenue.  This would cause students to go to colleges that make money knowing they would be getting paid, compared to a college that doesn’t have financial stability to pay athletes. College would not be college anymore. The universities would become franchises and inevitably turn into a smaller version of the NFL.  The law Title IX makes it mandatory for each team to provide the same amount of benefits to each student.  From the incomes to these few sports, the less popular sports at schools would be cut because they do not have enough revenue coming in to pay the players. "("Student-athletes generate billions of dollars for universities and private companies while earning nothing for themselves.") This is indisputably untrue. Student-athletes earn free tuition, which

A topic that is very controversial for everyone is, should student-athletes in college be compensated? There numerous evidence that supports in favor and many against the proposition of paying student- athletes who play sports for their university. As a college athlete, students are putting their bodies on the line each game they play. There’s possibility of suffering a traumatic brain injury or being paralyze after physical contact. These athletes are sacrificing their bodies and physical health at an opportunity to play a game which they love, and hopefully play it in the professional level. While that’s taking place, college football and basketball are big business that keep expanding. College sports bring in a large amount of revenues. The result is that many of them fail to graduate. Paying college athletes would not ruin amateur sport because even though most college athletes do get scholarship and should focus on their education it doesn’t help them if most of the time they are not attending classes to be in practice or games. College sports do make a high-income and athletes deserve a portion of the revenue they bring their programs.

Bennett, Dashiell. “Only 22 Of 120 Division I Athletic Programs Made Money Last Year.” Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc., 15 Jun. 2011. Web. 28 Oct 2014.This supports Frank Crumley’s claim that most athletic programs “work in the red.” The author also shows how football is the big money maker. Not all departments can pay their players. Therefore, it would be unfair for departments that can pay their players to do so. The figures come from the NCAA annual report of revenue and expenses for Division I sports. This is one of my main arguments against paying football players.

While growing up in the state of Texas I was introduced to National Football League (NFL) at a very young age. Not only was I obsessed with great players like Emmitt Smith and Michael Irving, I had a more finical appreciation for the lucrativeness associated with the NFL. My young adulthood as well as my teenage years was spent playing and learning football with the aspirations of hopefully making it to the NFL. Unfortunately, my playing days ended with tryouts at Texas Tech University, but my love for the game has remained stagnant over the years even till this day. The NFL today is Americas most watched sports league and has taken the crown as the most lucrative and unique economic force in sports. Forbes offered approximations stating that on average, the NFL generates more than $6-9 billion a year in revenues alone. A third of the individual franchises in the league were appraised at over more than $1 billion while the other franchises average nine figures or higher. The NFL as an organization generates its revenues through a multitude of ways ranging from huge television contracts, in-stadium ticket sales, advertising ads paid for by sponsors and merchandise. Their business model unlike most other leagues, is centered on a hard salary cap on player contracts which provides cost certainty with its sponsors. In this paper, I will examine the economic and historical narrative associated with the growth of the NFL’s

College athletics for some schools are what brings in the most revenues in terms of category. These college athletes that attend these schools are able to generate millions to billions of dollars from viewers, sponsorships, and fans. “The 231 NCAA Division I schools with data available generated a total of $9.15 billion in revenue during the 2015 fiscal year. But while there are 24 schools that make more than $100 million” (Gaines,Cork). This data provides the evidence that the top generating schools has the capabilities to pay their athletes, yet they do not. John Bill an expert believes the NCAA should pay college athletes. Bill explains, “The promise of a free education is not enough anymore if the NCAA wants to act as a money making business, and not reward those who help make it profitable” (Bill,John). The NCAA has evolved to be a professional league on its own. For the amount of revenue they will be earning it is comparable to the

Most student-athletes playing a sport in college are there on an athletic scholarship. The scholarship is granted to them by their respective schools and is worth anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000. According to Edelman, the football program alone at University of Alabama brought in roughly 143.3 million dollars of revenue. In perspective, that’s about 2 million per player. Even though Alabama is an elite program and brings in more than the average football program, the NCAA brought in nearly $845 billion in 2011 per Sonny. Now it is obvious there many ways a university brings in revenue, but it is safe to say that a player is worth more than that $100,000 scholarship. In fact, a substantial share of college sports’ revenues stay in the hands of a select few administrators, athletic directors, and coaches. Now think about what college athletics would be without the world class athletes it has today, or without any athletes at all. If a school didn’t “award” athletes these scholarships, there would be

The “contradiction at the heart of big-time college football,” as Michael Oriard describes it, is the competing demands of marketing and education. The 1890s proved to university administrators that there was an enormous market for collegiate football, which postulated opportunities for university building. Since this ubiquitous realization, there has coincided this blatant, yet unchanging contradiction that academic institutions are permitted to profit off of the services provided by its student-athletes while the athletes must idly accept that they are amateurs, donating their efforts to their respective schools. The schools then direct this revenue toward strengthening their athletic departments, and thus continues this seemingly endless growth of big-time college sports, all while athletes remain uncompensated and academics continue to take a backseat.

            If college students are spending their time playing these sports and not working, they should be getting paid for it. Not only are these students forfeiting their time to study, talk to friends, and even relax after classes, but they are missing an opportunity to have jobs. “Players’ relationships to the school they play for should be spelled out in an individualized pay-for-service contract rather than an NCAA-standardized letter of intent that impinges on basic freedoms” (Marx, 475). The NCAA requires that students are enrolled full time and play football to gain the scholarship offered. There is an argument by Hartenstine on this subject that “Some 15 percent played professional football as a first career, but 15 percent were corporate executives, 13

The NCAA’s greatest fear about paying student athletes is the money itself. They worry it will be spread thin between all the sports departments, but with all the money circulating around the college sports industry, they should not have any concerns. The two most popular college sports, football and men’s basketball, generate over $6 billion in annual revenue combined; more than the amount the National

Athletics have always been a huge part of my life. For as long as I can remember I have been throwing a ball, catching a ball, racing, competing, you name it. This led me to so many great opportunities in my life. I played on a state championship football team in high school, I had the opportunity to play college football, and I formed relationships that will no doubt last me a lifetime. So yes, it is near and dear to my heart. Thus, I pay serious attention to things that often go on in the world of sports, some that are more important than others. The hot button issue when it comes to college athletics today is the relationship between the schools and the athletes from a financial perspective. When I first started hearing about it, I can honestly say that I did not know too much about the subject. There are a lot of economics and business concepts and terms that were a foreign language to me. As I continued to research, I became fascinated with both sides of this issue which have credible arguments. On one side of it, there are pundits who will be the first to say we should not pay these athletes for a myriad of reasons that I will go into as I progress. The other side says that the current system is nothing short of exploitation on the highest level that these athletes are not being properly compensated for what they endure day in and day out. This is a delicate issue that is becoming more and more of a focal point throughout the country. The myth