To pay or not pay college athletes is not the real issue

We should’ve moved on from the issue of whether to pay or not to pay at least some college athletes.

Given the billions that are generated by massive television deals and 90,000seat stadiums — not to mention those pesky antitrust laws — it should be accepted by all sides that some sort of compensation is not only fair, but inevitable.

At this point, the discussion needs to be moving on to more complex questions, such as: Who gets paid? How much should they receive? What can be done to ensure gender equality? Will non-revenue sports survive?

An Associated Pres survey of athletic directors around the country revealed the tired ol’ gripes we’ve been hearing for years about any efforts to put more money in the pockets of those who are powering the revenue rocket ship.

Namely, that it will destroy every college sport other than football and men’s basketball.

“What little revenue 95% of institutions realize through revenue sports, goes toward supporting other sports,” one AD wrote in the survey, which allowed the responders to remain anonymous. “Paying those 5% of students will devastate the other teams that rely on that revenue to survive.”

But that long-standing contention isn’t likely to hold up for much longer, especially when listening to a U.S. Supreme Court that seemed very sympathetic to athletes who say they are being illegally shortchanged by rules limiting their education-related compensation.

“Antitrust laws should not be a cover for exploitation of the student-athletes,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said during a hearing this week that should’ve sent chills down the backs of everyone at the NCAA and its member schools.

Under current NCAA rules, students cannot be paid, and the scholarship money colleges can offer is capped at the cost of attending the school.

Paul Newberry