clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

$ To Pay, Or Not To Pay $....

For the love of money-O' jays Full Version (via megamax888)

This week the NCAA President Mark Emmert, seemingly endorsed a proposal by the Big 12 Conference, to add a cash amount to each players "Athletic Scholarship". Amazingly simple this idea, intricately complicated, is the backlash.

I have stated here before that, many of these athletes are at a disadvantage in some respects, although, they should never be paid, just for playing sports.

In fact most of us here at TET have had discussions in some form or another, about this subject. This past season, we had to deal with the topic, much more than anyone had ever imagined.

First, and foremost, the aspect of players being paid has been used in accusatory fashion, when talking about nearly all the schools in the major conferences. It's a fact of life that many smaller schools fans have said that their rival in State school has the best players money can buy.

All of that drivel aside, it's an important proposal the NCAA President has endorsed. There are many varied issues to deal with, least of which is how much to pay the athletes. There are legal, and ethical issues, tax issues, and of course the actual method of pay, the scale of pay for non-scholarship athletes, and those partial scholarship recipients.

The upside is the possibilities of athletes getting a true "full ride" for their efforts, while in school, and keeping their grades up to an acceptable level.

The downside is a twisted and multifaceted ball of yarn, that is bound to get tangled. Pull at any loose end, and you are guaranteed to end up in a knot.

The criminal element is already at the doorstep waiting to pounce on every top recruit, whether it be basketball, or football, as soon as he or she gets into their senior year of high school. Recruiting is already the life blood of every program. Is throwing money at the players going to make it any better? I say NO!

As for the method, I see only one way to actually handle the transactions, and stay above board with the funds disbursement. Use the expense account style that most corporations use. An athlete can buy whatever they have to have under the guidelines, and turn in the receipt for reimbursement. The only problem with that is, you have to assume that a player has the funds to make the original purchase, to start with.

This style of refund would eliminate any handing out of cash, and hoping they spend it wisely. It would insure, for the most part, that at least the money was spent on actual needs, and not desires. Yes, I'm looking at you Stanley!

Whether or not a player is refunded expenses, the IRS will look at that as income, and want their "fair share" of the pie. This would only add to the annual expense of each player, and create a whole new set of problems. I am not a tax lawyer, nor an accountant, so someone else with expertise in that area can answer these questions.

Question 1

Do you pay the shot-put member of the track team the same as your star running back on the largest income engine of your entire athletic machine?

Question 2

Are there loopholes that a University could use to get around the athletes paying taxes on an expense account? A broad based question for sure, although it probably could have been worded better.


Are there any loopholes for these same schools athletes, to receive a cash sum as part of their scholarship, and not have to pay taxes on them? This would be the case if an expense account would not be feasible.

Question 4

If the Universities started allowing an athlete an expense account, wouldn't that in effect create an employer/employee relationship? There are a million reasons I can think of that the schools do not want that to be the case.

How about a realistic look at the walk-on athletes? If you provide the scholarship athletes, shouldn't you provide the non-scholarship athletes as well? I smell a lawsuit, if this isn't the case. Here is an example. How could you have three place kickers on your football team, and one of them is a walk-on, and not provide the exact same form of expense account to all three?

Let's talk about it, let me hear your views, ideas, likes and dislikes about all this.