Bar pay-for-play in collegiate sports

Editorial

A sure-fire way to ruin collegiate sports would be to pay athletes, yet proponents continue to push for it, using the misguided reasoning that players deserve some of the big bucks schools and conferences are making off their play.

It has been discussed for years but recently gained momentum because of scandals at the University of Southern California and Ohio State University, where players received improper outside benefits.

Controversy surrounding recent Heisman Trophy winner Cam Newton of Auburn, whose father reportedly asked another school to pay six figures to secure the quarterback's commitment while he was being recruited, also has fueled the debate.

Steve Spurrier, the University of South Carolina head football coach and former Florida Gator, proposed giving football players $300 each for home games. A few other coaches support him.

Jim Delany, commissioner of the Big Ten Conference, of which Ohio State is a member, isn't as bold but has suggested athletes be compensated for the actual cost of attending school. Scholarships cover fees, tuition, room and board, and books but do not provide for such items as transportation, clothing, laundry and spending money.

Perspective is needed in this debate. It can't be stressed enough that college athletes on full scholarship are fortunate. They have the opportunity to play sports and get a free education — which otherwise could cost tens of thousands of dollars a year. It is up to them to take advantage of it.

Just as important, paying athletes would taint the foundation of collegiate sports. As Purdue men's basketball coach Matt Painter pointed out during a recent conference call with reporters: "I don't want to lose the amateurism."

Moreover, paying athletes is simply impractical. Under federal law — Title IX — all athletes would have to be paid; players in the big-ticket sports of men's football and basketball could not be singled out. This would create an enormous burden on smaller schools that don't have lucrative TV deals or 100,000-seat stadiums. With a payment system, it is likely only a few powerhouse universities would benefit.

As things stand, the athletes represent their schools and legions of fans and alumni, which should be a source of pride and provide abundant post-school job opportunities. They are not employees of universities and have no claim on the gobs of money made from television deals and other revenue sources, which is a separate matter in itself.

Further, under National Collegiate Athletic Association bylaws, athletes are allowed to work, as do many other college students who aren't on scholarship and need to pay for their education and personal needs. There are no restrictions on the amount they can be paid, only that they actually perform the tasks they're hired for and at a rate "commensurate with the going rate in that locality for similar services."

Assistance is available for athletes in need in the form of Pell Grants, and a National Collegiate Athletic Association "emergency fund" that helps athletes travel home in the event of family emergencies such as sickness and death.

Coaches and athletic directors need to be understanding and flexible with players from lower-income homes who need to work so they can have spending money and money for personal expenses. Perhaps the NCAA needs to look at ways it could help athletes better manage the demands of work, sports and school.

But NCAA President Mark Emmert is right to oppose paying athletes, stressing, "There is a model for that — it's called professional sports." Indeed, if athletes want be paid, they have every right to try to go pro when they're eligible.

The pay-for-play ruse is bound to be a hot topic when Emmert gathers about 50 school presidents and chancellors for a meeting in August to discuss the future of Division I sports. But it should be dispensed with quickly. As Emmert says: "That's not what college sports is about."