The Case for Paying College Athletes

In The Atlantic, Taylor Branch explains why a major overhaul of the NCAA is necessary

This article is from the archive of our partner .

College sports is a big business for networks, coaches, and universities. It's time for more student athletes to get a cut. In the newest issue of The Atlantic, produced just down the hall, Pulitzer-winning historian Taylor Branch untangles the logic of amateur athletic programs and builds the case for why college athletes need to be paid. Below is the introduction to his investigation, the article can be read in full here:

For all the outrage, the real scandal is not that students are getting illegally paid or recruited, it’s that two of the noble principles on which the NCAA justifies its existence—“amateurism” and the “student-athlete”—are cynical hoaxes, legalistic confections propagated by the universities so they can exploit the skills and fame of young athletes. The tragedy at the heart of college sports is not that some college athletes are getting paid, but that more of them are not....

...Fans and educators alike recoil from this proposal as though from original sin. Amateurism is the whole point, they say. Paid athletes would destroy the integrity and appeal of college sports. Many former college athletes object that money would have spoiled the sanctity of the bond they enjoyed with their teammates. I, too, once shuddered instinctively at the notion of paid college athletes.

But after an inquiry that took me into locker rooms and ivory towers across the country, I have come to believe that sentiment blinds us to what’s before our eyes. Big-time college sports are fully commercialized. Billions of dollars flow through them each year. The NCAA makes money, and enables universities and corporations to make money, from the unpaid labor of young athletes.

This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.