The ideal of paying college football players is nonsense. First, only about 25 major programs make a profit as it is now. (One article says 22 in 2010, and I’ve heard 26 during some recent discussion on sports radio).
And does anyone seriously think, in today’s legal environment, that any school could get away with paying only football players?
There might be some basis for giving players a cut of profits made from merchandising, autographs and other profitable activities in which players might participate.
But the idea of paying players is complete nonsense. But, hey, what about those huge high school programs in football crazy states that make a profit? Should those HS boys be cut in on the profits? They don’t receive anything for their efforts but personal satisfaction and recognition. (And HS basketball players in some areas.)
You are spot on. About 85% of the FBS teams do not turn a profit. D1 football programs are incredibly expensive to run and not the profit making monsters that so many seem to think they are. They promote and market the school and reinforce school identity. I think a lot of people would be surprised at how small some of the bigger named sports powerhouses actually are.
Since most football teams lose money, paying the athletes on those teams would be the same as paying students in sports like swimming, wrestling etc. I would also assume that Title IX would come into play and females student athletes would have to be paid.
I think that if schools sell merchandise that is identifiable as a specific student, that student should get a cut.
Between 1 and 2% of college athletes go pro. The other 98% are being compensated with a free education and an opportunity. What they choose to do with it is up to them.