In a decision expected to reshape the future of college athletics, the NCAA has agreed to a settlement in the House v. NCAA antitrust lawsuit to allow schools to pay athletes directly for the first time in history. The deal allows athletic departments to set aside approximately $20.5 million annually per school to distribute among athletes across various sports.
As news of the agreement spreads, students at the University of Mississippi have voiced a range of opinions. In the interviews conducted by The Daily Mississippian, no student expressed purely positive feelings toward direct student-athlete payments.
Many students expressed worry about loyalty and school spirit and questioned whether this is the best way to spend money. For some, the $20.5 million figure is an immediate red flag.
“I think paying student athletes is great, but I think $20 million is too much,” sophomore music major Nate Clark said. “There are probably plenty of other things the Athletic Department could use that money on.”
Students are also unsettled about how it will affect their education.
“It can be hard for athletes to focus on their academics when getting paid that much through athletics,” freshman marketing major Anna Cooper said. “This could be something to be cautious about since an injury could lead them to become reliant on academics.”
Freshman sports management major Katie Aust is happy that universities will be able to pay their student-athletes directly, but she questions if student-athletes are capable of handling that amount of money wisely.
“I think it is amazing that college athletes are making money, since they seem to have pro pressure on them,” Aust said. “However, they are still kids and should learn how to use the money responsibly.”
Aust also voiced concern regarding the large amount of money going to student-athletes as opposed to others who face difficult financial situations — namely, hard-working employees or students who take out loans to go to college.
“I also want to point out that it is a lot of money slotted to those few kids when there are students who take out loans or the people who work at the stadiums in the office (or) the custodial staff,” Aust said. “Could more money be given to (these other groups)?”
Aust emphasizes that this concentration of money on student-athletes is not necessarily the best way to improve the environment of college sports, or even the environment of college in general.
“If we want to grow sports, let’s invest in long-lasting improvements and a good environment, or invest (money) into academics, which is the main point for colleges,” Aust said. “All in all, it is a lot of money for one kid when some students may struggle to eat day-to-day (or) just to get an education.”
Some students worry that revenue share will take the love of the game out of college sports.
“I feel like it’s changing football in a major way,” freshman integrated marketing communications major Trip Robold said. “It’s not about what team is building a strong connection with their players — it’s now more about what teams can offer a player the most money. Now, players like to switch teams purely because they’re being offered a huge NIL deal.”
Still, after years of uncertainty surrounding the issue of whether college athletes should be paid, students are pleased to see action.
“In the past seven years, college sports has seen a lot of change very fast with very little consideration as to what it could do to (the game),” senior accounting major Hayden Dressler said. “I believe that this added salary cap could be the first step to ending this era of wild west sports that was caused by many circumstances and miscalculated decisions.”
