By Ben Goodman ’16, Sports Editor

Almost 150 million Americans tuned in to this year’s NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) Division I Men’s Basketball Championship that churned out $10 billion of revenue, which was distributed to athletic conferences, to specific schools, and then to athletic directors and coaches. Everyone joined in on the lucrative fun… except for one group: the athletes.

For nearly the last 150 years, universities and colleges in the United States have sported athletic teams. Today, watching college football, college basketball, and other sports has become mainstream, churning out profits for schools and their aligned conferences. Yet, not one dollar has ever (legally) gone to the athletes who produce the highly demanded on-field product. Recently, the debate about whether or not the “student-athletes” deserve to be paid salaries and be represented in the NCAA has exploded.

Competing sides of the argument are players, such as the Northwestern football team, and college administrations and athletic conferences, backed by the NCAA. A coalition of Wildcat football players, including former quarterback Kain Colter, argued that players are employees of the university and deserve to form a union and collectively bargain with the NCAA, complaining about a multitude of slights directed toward them. For instance, they claim they’ve practiced far more than the NCAA-maximum 20 hours a week. When an NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) director agreed that players could unionize in March, the Northwestern squad voted on the concept using secret ballots weeks later. We still don’t know the results, owed to ferocious backlash from administrations and some other athletes. Northwestern successfully challenged the vote and brought about a “full-board review” of the NLRB’s decision. There is much worry among those believing that a unionized student-athlete body would be toxic for all of college sports. In fact, Bernard Muir, Stanford Athletic Director, said if unions were allowed, Stanford would “opt out, and look for other alternatives (to having NCAA teams).” Clearly, administrations understand that if their athletes are given more voice and more standing, they could self-advocate far easier and perhaps even call for payment.

We, the fans, are taking sides as we please. Many concur that student-athletes are astoundingly underrepresented in their own arena and, frankly, are being cheated out of what they deserve. “The top Division I athletes generate so much money for their schools, but they are not compensated at all,” argues Miles Park ’16. “Scholarships are a cheap option for greedy schools that if possible would rather not pay athletes their real worth.” Park has a point. In fact, star players like Jabari Parker’s and Jameis Winston’s true market values are around $5 million.

On the other side of the fence, Dylan Flanagan ’16 is certain that salaried college athletes would ruin the priority of college: academics. “If (colleges) paid their athletes, that shows that they are only about athletics. Is that fair to non-athletes’ parents who have to cough up $50,000 a year to give their kids opportunities?” Here, Flanagan alludes to the pervading argument that athletes, many of whom riding scot-free through school, cannot complain about their circumstances. Enough attention is put on college sports; it’s overkill to treat these student-athletes like working adults. Also, the pro-compensation group’s seemingly fair plea to duly reward athletes for their impact has as many holes as does the anti-compensation argument. Many collegiate sports don’t produce significant revenue, so a women’s volleyball player is not worth even close to $5 million. True market-based supporters would state that the football player should be paid a lot more than the volleyball player, based purely on monetary value to the university.

Finally, one of the Academy’s top athletes and future Columbia pitcher Matt Ratner ’14 took somewhat of a middle ground. “Ivy League schools don’t even give athletic scholarships,” he said, “That’s just how they’ve done things, but they do give financial aid.” He saw benefits for athletic scholarships over paid salaries, since athletes must keep up their grades to continue the validity of their scholarships. Proposing that student-athletes should only be paid for athletic merchandise, Ratner implicitly revealed his lean toward the previously mentioned market solution. Matt may believe that college athletes should not be treated as professionals in terms of money but that they should be able to unionize. “How else can we ensure we’re treated fairly?” he asked.

In a perfect world colleges would pay all their athletes, but they simply can’t afford it. Clearly, the debate is unfinished and will rage on, until and probably past the point when our NA peers, some of them future athletes like Ratner, will prepare for college. Stay tuned.