Let’s back up a bit. Questions about paying students who participate in certain types of college athletics start from the premise that elite college athletic programs provide viable educational opportunities for “majors.” Given that premise, there are reasonable questions to be raised about whether and how elite student-athletes should be compensated. However, that premise is difficult to justify when you consider that athletic departments can/are encouraged to treat some of their students in ways that would be considered unethical and/or abusive if practiced by any other department. Indeed, about 67% of former National Collegiate Athletic Associate Division 1 players reported sustaining serious injuries during their college playing experience. In addition, participation in elite college sports leaves little, if any, time for training in other fields, including those that can lead to later employment. The latter is an especially important consideration given that very few college players go on to professional sports careers.

We must ask ourselves whether we would accept a situation in which the Chemistry Department required certain students to perform experiments that were known to cause serious, and possibly chronic, injuries to a substantial percentage of participants? Would we tolerate a psychology professor whose pedagogical style included what would be considered verbal and/or physical abuse in any other context? Wouldn’t we question the practices of any university department that required its own medical/rehabilitation staff?

And then there’s the elephant in the room: the fact that participation in college athletics may be the only way for some students to obtain a Bachelor’s degree. I wonder if we would be so accepting of a college program that treated its “majors” the way elite college athletes are treated if the latter were drawn primarily from more privileged groups.

That said, we can’t have it both ways. Either college athletes are students, in which case departmental requirements must be made to conform to the university’s general codes of behavior, or they are athletes, in which case they should be paid fair market value, allowed to engage in collective bargaining, and permitted to form alliances with other professional players and groups.

While I believe that the university has a responsibility to provide all students with a safe, respectful environment in which they can learn and develop, I also realize that sports are income generators, which may be especially important in view of recent skepticism about the value of higher education. In that context, universities that choose to continue with the current approach to college sports must stop pretending that their athletes are “students” in any commonly accepted sense. They must provide full disclosure of all the risks of sports participation to all potential players and their parents before any contracts are signed. They must acknowledge that elite college athletes are subjected to rigorous training protocols and performance demands that pose serious health risks. And they must compensate their “employees” fairly in terms of salaries; health, disability, and long-term care insurance; respect; and collective bargaining.

On the other hand, maybe it’s time to consider phasing out the current approach to dangerous college sports. Maybe we can find other ways to allow talented high school athletes to get a college education. Maybe universities can protect and educate all its students.

Elyse Morgan, emorgan2975@gmail.com

Paying athletes? I’m sure everyone’s first question is, “How will this affect CS Professors’ compensation?” I too am concerned about that. For the sake of the rest of this piece, let’s just assume CS professors are safe.

I was all for NIL (Name, Image and Likeness) deals, as it only seemed fair to compensate the true stars. You might say, “They are already getting a free college education. Isn’t that enough?” It is enough for the benchwarmers, but should a player who rarely gets on the field deserve the same compensation as the star quarterback or running back? No, they should not. Just like Taylor Swift makes more than her backup singers.

NIL deals are orthogonal to the university, meaning boosters and other organizations raise money and strike promotional deals with players separate from the team. Expanding athlete compensation to direct payments from the school is a fundamental change. Such players would now be employees of the university, not just students.

And if some players are employees, are all of them employees? Not all players have NIL deals so it stands to reason that not all players need to be paid to play — free tuition is enough for most. But wouldn’t it be strange if only a few players were employees and the rest weren’t?

The issue of college athletes as employees came up last March when Dartmouth’s men’s basketball team petitioned to form a union. This was after a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional director ruled that the players were employees of the school. The school appealed the ruling but before a court decision, the players withdrew their petition. Hence, the issue of whether college athletes are already employees of their colleges is currently unresolved. Of course, if universities start paying athletes that will be moot: They will be employees.

This isn’t a good thing. For the elite players, college athletics is training them for a professional career. It’s like an unpaid internship, where the players get valuable experience and exposure. Being employees would muddy the waters with all the workplace regulations, maybe unions and possibly strikes.

Getting paid via NIL or a salary is a strong incentive to stay in school, finish their degree, and build lifelong relationships. That’s good, but it can be accomplished with just NIL deals. Directly paying athletes is too slippery of a slope for CU to venture out on.

Bill Wright, bill@wwwright.com