Scholar athletes deserve to be paid by schools

Student-athletes are some of the hardest working individuals on college campuses. In some cases, athletes are up before dawn to attend early morning weight training and practices. After practice, they are expected to attend a full day of classes, before repeating the schedule the following day.

Without a doubt, college athletes are living demanding lives. Though some student-athletes argue they are able to live out their dreams by playing a sport at the next level and profiting from the notoriety that they might gain from their sport, some are left wondering whether student-athletes should receive more benefits, aside from tuition and stipends.

In need · Many scholar athletes, including those at USC, are not able to function on the NCAA’s monthly stipend. Currently, the stipend is $2,000, which oftentimes is not enough for the athletes, especially in high-priced cities like Los Angeles. - Carlo Acenas | Daily Trojan

Recently, the NCAA has been evaluating whether the stipends are sufficient considering the current climate for college athletes. Currently, the monthly stipend for college athletes is $2,000. For athletes in metropolitan areas like USC, not much is left from the stipend once rent and expenses are paid. Because of this discrepancy, many athletes have demanded a change in the current system because of its flaws. For the current system to be truly functional, drastic changes need to be made.

Some advocates have suggested that student-athletes should be paid for their athletic endeavors by their universities. But this proposal has been immediately shot down becuase paying college-level athletes violates the concept of “amateurism” in college athletics. Another immediate criticism stems from the fact that at certain universities, some sports are more prosperous than others. The revenue gained from country-wide (and even worldwide) popular sports like football or basketball is often used to fund other sports on the campus.

Other proposals to fix the stipend issue have suggested following a system similar to the Olympics. Student-athletes would be able to benefit from being sponsored from interested companies supplementing tuition and monthly stipends. Athletes would be able to benefit from his or her athletic achievements, granting them ease of mind and ease of their wallets while they are in school.

Ideally, this is the best scenario. Athletes from all areas of the sports spectrum would be able to benefit from this advantageous change. The athletes would be able to focus on their sport and most importantly — education.

Though it might take years before a full reform is implemented, change needs to occur immediately. To greatly impact and alleviate the issue, the NCAA should change the monthly stipend to accommodate the variance in the cost of living among college towns. The stipend needs to be adapted to the location of the university. This instant fix will ease the flaws in the current system.

Yes, many will object to the notion of providing student-athletes with more than the stipend or reformed stipend system. Do not be quick to forget that it is the athletes who are generating the revenue for his or her university. In today’s system, not one college athlete receives a single dollar from sale of merchandise that possesses his or her image. Shouldn’t they receive some type of incentive because it is the athletes who are driving the consumers in purchasing the product?

Most importantly, is it truly fair to not give credit where it is due? After all, it is student-athletes like Kendall Bateman, Christina Marinacci, Maurice Jones and Matt Barkley that keep the Trojan tradition alive and prevalent in USC and collegiate athletics.

“Armchair Quarterback” runs Tuesdays. To comment on this article, email Andie at or visit

4 replies
  1. Mary Davie
    Mary Davie says:

    Agree, agree, agree! And few student athletes have any form of scholarship outside of football and basketball.

  2. Parent of Athlete
    Parent of Athlete says:

    First, this article doesn’t clarify that these $2000/month stipends are only for football and basketball players who are also on full scholarships (valued at close to $35K/year), have training tables (free food) and have all their books paid for.

    If there are to be any changes, it needs to be that ALL student-athletes get the same benefits not just the marquee sports. (And don’t tell me that football makes all the money… while that may be true, part of the issue is that colleges and the media don’t actively promote their other sports… judging from the numbers of people who watch the Olympics, there is definitely an audience for other sports especially aquatic sports, tennis, golf and track).

    For instance, our son is a USC water polo player with four championship rings and many could argue his team is comprised of some of the finest athletes in the world. But there’s no $2000/mo stipend and no training table. And he lives with 3 other athletes in a small home so that his rent is $400/month… frankly, $2000/mo would be more than he’d need if he had the same benefits as the football players.

    So rather than give more to those that already have more than they need, let’s share the wealth, yes?

  3. Lee
    Lee says:

    “Shouldn’t they receive some type of incentive because it is the athletes who are driving the consumers in purchasing the product?”

    Aren’t most of the student-athletes already receiving free tuition, tutoring service, coaching, etc.? So now you want to turn an educational institution into a sports franchise?

  4. Thekatman
    Thekatman says:

    This is the main reason why I dont buy a player’s jersey or any oer mrchandise that has his/her name or photo. They dont get a share of the revenue, so why buy it? The school is making plenty of money from other sources.

Comments are closed.