Recently, the NCAA has been considering passing a new rule that will allow student-athletes to receive a profit for the use of their names, jerseys, and pictures. I could see this going either very well or end up being a total catastrophe.

In the past, this has been an issue for players; they find it unfair that the NCAA pulls in $1 billion dollars a year in jersey sales and pictures of the athletes. 

I could see this being a really good thing to happen for NCAA athletes. The athletes should be making some kind of profit for the use of their names and their pictures; it’s their hard work and their talent that secures them popularity–why not profit from sales?

The players could be using this money for daily necessities or even put it towards their tuition (if they aren’t already on full-ride scholarships).

They could also spend the money on improving their athleticism, perhaps hiring a private coach, investing in the necessary equipment to train better and longer. 

And as a result of that, the competition within the sport would rise dramatically. The athletes would get better and push themselves further so they could ultimately make more money from endorsements. 

In addition, NCAA athletes are already taking a big risk playing without pay. For example, look at former NBA star Greg Oden; he was a five-star recruit and the number one draft pick. This may sound like everything worked out in his favor, but in reality, it didn’t. Oden busted his knee while playing his freshman year at Ohio State University, and this resulted in Oden not being able to reach his full potential in the NBA. 

On the other hand, this could also end up being a disaster. The athletes would be making a lot of money from this new rule, and what is likely to occur when young athletes all of a sudden have a lot of money? Probably nothing good.

For example, it is likely that young, college athletes would spend money on partying or other social behaviors. As a result, they would be out often and at night. This would throw off their game and could ultimately cost them their scholarship. 

To counter the possible issues with this new rule, the NCAA should make it so that the players are paid after the season or at the end of the school year. If they would implement a rule such as this, then the athletes wouldn’t have any distractions, or have to worry about taking time away from their sport.

It is also likely that between wanting to up their game in order to make more money and have an additional cash flow, who’s to say that these athletes wouldn’t consider performance-enhancing drugs (PED)?  PED’s make players stronger, faster, and angrier, which ultimately would make players a lot better on the field/court. 

A prime example of a player taking PED’s would be the former All-Pro defensive end, Lyle Alzado. Alzado was an absolute beast on the field, his play changed the game for defensive ends. Although Alzado was very good, he was always angry, trying to hurt people, picked fights on and off the field constantly. Anabolic steroids took over his mind, and he couldn’t stop taking them.

The NCAA should seriously consider both the positives, as well as the negatives of allowing college athletes to be paid. If not, this could end up being a total debacle. 

If the NCAA made it so that the student-athletes were paid their due at the end of the season or the year, maybe then they would save it and could use that money for later on in life.