Fairfield University recently hosted the opening round of the NIT basketball tournament, taking on powerhouse Boston College, and attracting record setting 6,500 plus in attendance. None of the players on the men’s basketball team received any of the tens of thousands of dollars generated by the event.
Nationwide, there are 360,000 student athletes currently participating in U.S. collegiate sports. They often receive scholarships, free room and board and money for books. But is that enough? Should they receive a cut of the money they help generate?
Pay for play is a hot topic in the NCAA right now. Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers has filed a bill that would provide stipends to college athletes.
“I have an objection to be paid to play. It goes against everything athletics is about,” said Fairfield Director of Athletics Eugene Doris. “I’m not opposed to students receiving some sort of compensation because they can’t get a job because of their time commitment to their team. Compensation to some extent should exist.”
At the University of Nebraska, administration is discussing the possibility of stipends for the football players. The football team brings is one of the only teams at the university to make a profit. Sen. Chambers argues that they should get more money because football is huge for the school.
At University of Maryland, Athletic Director Debbie Yow thinks that athletes such as Juan Dixon, a member of the 2002 National Championship basketball team, should receive a portion of the revenues from merchandise sale that the team is responsible for.
Myles Brand, the current NCAA president, is against the Chambers’ bill because, like Doris, he feels it ruins the integrity of the NCAA.
Coaches at Fairfield are also against the play for pay proposal.
“I think they [athletes] are already paid, and they get enough,” said women’s volleyball head coach Jeff Werneke. “When they sign a letter of intent, they get a contract – books, classes, room and board, stipends if they live off-campus. I think they are paid through the value of education and their coaches’ hours of help to make them better players and developing their skills.”
Women’s soccer head coach Maria Piechocki said players should be compensated if they are not able to get a job because of athletics, but doesn’t feel athletes should be paid simply to play their respective sports.
“Getting a scholarship and education is worth a lot,” Piechocki said. “Do they deserve more? That’s a difficult issue to answer. I’m kind of old-school and believe athletes should be compensated for not being able to work. But as far as pay for play, I don’t think that should happen.”
Doris said the issue that should first be addressed is the amount of time athletes are forced to dedicate to their team.
“I think the amount of time athletes put in should be cut down,” Doris said. “A lot of programs have turned into full-year situations. That’s something that needs to be looked at first.”
Allison Sexton, the assistant athletic director at Fairfield, was thrilled with the turnout at the NIT but is also not in favor of paying student athletes.
“I think it was great for Fairfield to receive a home game with a name opponent like Boston College,” Sexton said. “But I don’t see the pay for play happening in the near future. You need to remember that there is a difference in gross and net revenues and there are very few college athletic programs that actually make money.”
Non-athletes such as Greg Johns ’04 believe that student athletes already get enough as it is.
“I do not feel student athletes should be paid because I feel that many receive free tuition and that is plenty,” Johns said. “When you start to pay athletes, you will run into the same problem that you have in professional sports of high paychecks.”
Kelly Sorensen ’04, who is the secretary of the Student Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC) at Fairfield, has attended many conferences about issues in the NCAA. Pay for play is one of them.
“Paying student athletes would be getting away from the whole essence of being a student athlete,” said Sorensen, a member of the volleyball team. “Receiving an athletic scholarship should be enough.”
Mike Aguirre, the president of the national SAAC, said that the pay for play makes no sense and will take away from what it means to be a student athlete.
“I believe that we have to look for more ways to work within the system to get student athletes more money,” Aguirre, a former Arizona State football player said. “But I think that paying student athletes for their performances on the field is inappropriate.”
Dewitt Maxwell ’06, a member of the Fairfield basketball team, believes in the pay for play system for bigger schools but not for Fairfield.
“Athletes at this level (Fairfield) should not be paid,” Maxwell said. “But at Duke and other top programs that bring in so much revenue should pay the athletes because they don’t get any of the money the school makes off them.”
There are very few schools that generate profit from athletic programs. Fairfield University has some very competitive sports but, as Sexton says, the school does not bring in revenue from them so paying student athletes will probably not happen.
Overall, varsity sports receive $7 million of the school’s budget.
“Getting a free education should be more than enough for student athletes.” Sorensen said. “After all, that is why we are all here.”
Leave a Reply