Pay for play idea has too many ?aws to enact

THE ISSUE: After a screening of the documentary “Schooled: The Price of College Sports” last week in Carroll Hall, a panel discussed the current state of college athletics. Among many issues, the often-debated issue of paying college athletes was touched upon.

See the counter-point.

The student-athlete “pay for play” debate is in full force and it doesn’t look to be going away any time soon.

Supporters of the mantra point to the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s near-billion-dollar annual revenues and claim that these revenues are unfairly made off of athletes without giving them proper compensation — a claim that blatantly undervalues the importance of education, opportunities and once-in-a-lifetime experiences.

At the panel discussion, UNC Athletic Director Bubba Cunningham reminded the audience that student athletes across the country — and at UNC in particular — have the opportunity and the privilege not only to participate in sports but to attend one of the greatest universities in the country.

Jim Boeheim, Hall of Fame basketball coach at Syracuse University, stirred up controversy earlier this month when he referred to the idea of paying college athletes as “the most idiotic suggestion of all time.”

While Boeheim is clearly on the extreme end of the spectrum, this could be the closest he has ever been to right about something.

Boeheim debunked former Michigan University and NBA star Chris Webber’s grumble that he received no sort of compensation despite his jersey being sold in student stores, citing that Webber received a free education and the publicity that would eventually land him a big-time NBA contract.

I love Webber for calling the greatest time-out in UNC basketball history just as much as the next guy, but Boeheim has a point.

The few thousand dollars that athletes could make off of royalties pales in comparison to the value of a full scholarship, an education and the exposure that gives athletes a chance to show off their skills to professional scouts.

And as valuable as this education and exposure is, it’s not the only thing that student athletes receive. College athletes get to live out the dream — playing the sport that so many of them love while hundreds and, in many cases, thousands of their peers look on and cheer.

However, if the fame and envy aren’t enough either, maybe we can all agree that the abundance of free gear that student athletes receive is a pretty nice perk.

Yes, the NCAA is seemingly raking it in year after year, but the bottom line is that the NCAA is a nonprofit association. Ninety-six percent of its revenues go back to member conferences and schools or support championships and programs aimed at benefiting the student athlete.

A plan to pay players has yet to come without its own litany of issues and problems.

Are we willing to pay revenue sport student athletes at the expense of cutting other sports? Who do we pay and how much? Is amateur athletics a thing of the past?

There are tons of questions regarding the issue and the regulation that would be necessary to implement it.

This all-or-nothing approach toward either paying or not paying student athletes is extremely polarizing.

Until a plan that can quell all of these issues is proposed, I see no reason to change a policy that has been in place for more than a hundred years.