As college athletics become increasingly popular and profitable, compensation for collegiate student athletes has been in higher demand. However, both the immediate and long term consequences of such a plan are impractical in the current financial climate. The expenses and distractions that come with additional payment create a significant disruption to the institution’s budget, as well as pose burdens on the rest of the student body.
California was the first state to pass the NIL (name, image, likeness) law on Jan. 1, 2023, authorizing college athletes to profit off of the earnings made from their play. 18 other states followed suit throughout the year, urging further action to cement the logistics of the law.
Despite its popularity, the lack of clarity in the NIL law poses obstacles for the different administrations involved, such as colleges and the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA). According to economist Jeffrey Dorfman, only a few popular collegiate programs bring in any profit; most other departments actually lose money. Without a profitable source of funding and a definite amount of money being paid to the student-athletes, it is impossible for the law to be enacted into the student-athlete system and function for the long-term.
Furthermore, implementing the system long term would require enormous amounts of money, with collegiate superstars like Bronny James making up to $5.9 million under the NIL law. To fulfill the needs of each athlete under the system, institutions would have to allocate and redistribute their funding as a whole, taking away from other scholarship opportunities and campus programs offered to the entire student body.
However, supporters of the plan emphasize the expensive and time-consuming aspects of college sports, with athletes heavily investing into sports equipment and packing their busy schedules with early practices. What they fail to realize is that student athletes already receive funding through athletic scholarships, which takes a heavy load off of their tuition. The NCAA provides a total of $3.6 billion annually in athletic scholarships, with an average of $14,500 going to each student athlete. Considering that collegiate sports are an extension of the players’ interests, the present monetary scholarships are already sufficient.
To address logistical complications, the NIL law must be clearly defined. Important details such as the amount of money being paid, the source of the money, and the list of sports receiving that money have not been laid out yet. The NIL law needs immediate changes and rethinking to reap the benefits of a sustainable and long term payment system.
While paying college athletes may seem good intentioned in theory, the implications of unclear legislation are unsustainable for the athletic institution. Furthermore, college athletes are left in more confusion without clarification of payment. California’s NIL law needs clear, strategic, and adjustable details to effectively execute the well-intentioned practice.
