Should College Athletes Be Considered Employees?

Kaitlyn Nielsen | Sports Editor

Picture description. / Photo by 'username', licensed by Envato.com.

There is a large debate in college sports. Athletic programs can define a university, encouraging students to attend regardless of whether their football team is better than another's. But the conversation pertaining to student athletes being classified as employees has intensified in the past couple of years. The NCAA, for years, has stood firm in its belief that college athletes are amateurs, and in response, they receive scholarships but no direct payment from the university they attend. However, with athletic programs having become multi-million dollar companies, questions have arisen concerning athletes' deserving salaries.   

For a while, the NCAA prohibited athletes from obtaining money aside from academically related benefits. Changes began in 2021 when the NCAA adopted the NIL rule. NIL stands for Name, Image, Likeness. This gave athletes a newfound freedom to profit from endorsements, sponsorships, and advertising deals. However, this money came from third-party businesses, not the university. This stance held firm the belief in the NCAA that athletes were not employees. Legal challenges soon followed the 2021 rule change, in Johnson v NCAA, the U.S. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit made the ruling that student athletes could potentially hold the title of employee, considering the economic reality of their roles. This ruling took into consideration how athletes contribute to their universities and the control those respective universities have over said athletes. Changes continued in 2025 with the House v. NCAA. This settlement allowed schools to directly share revenue with their athletes. The NCAA, however, classified these payments as “revenue-sharing” instead of salaries, continuing the resistance to employee classification for athletes. 

Many supporters of the policy argue that student athletes' responsibilities go beyond those of their peers. College sports, especially football and basketball, generate a considerable amount of revenue for universities. Through TV contracts, ticket sales, and merchandise, universities are able to profit in many different ways from these sports. Additionally, the time devoted by the athletes consumes their daily lives; in Division 1, athletes spend 30-50 hours weekly on practices, going to games, traveling, or studying film. All this is done while they are trying to balance their coursework, maintain good grades to stay eligible, and preserve their physical and mental well-being. The risk of injury is another argument; unlike traditional jobs, student athletes lack any long-term support or protection if injured. In many of the high-value sports such as football and basketball, ACL tears and concussions happen frequently; these injuries can come with lifelong consequences hindering these athletes down the road. While athletes continue to struggle both on the field and off, coaches and athletic departments are profiting enormously.

However, there are many opponents who have voiced their opinions, and many raised concerns about the consequences employee classification can have. Some believe that treating athletes as employees would alter the “student” portion of “student-athlete”. Athletes should be focused on their academics; paying them for contributing to a team or program would undermine their overall purpose for attending the university. Furthermore, paying athletes could harm smaller schools and programs that don’t generate a lot of revenue compared to larger programs. To be able to ensure wages for all athletes, many universities would be forced to cut programs for sports that don’t typically generate profit. On the flip side, critics also argue that scholarships are a form of compensation for athletes. They often give students full rides, paying for housing, meals, and academic support, taking away a lot of financial burdens for many athletes. However, the elephant in the room that many critics are concerned about is the competition. They believe that employee status would negatively impact competition, allow wealthier universities to buy top talent, offering to pay them more money, hurting smaller schools, and contributing to the divide in college athletics. 

As this argument evolves, like many of their policies, the amateur model from the NCAA looks incredibly outdated. The debate over employment status reflects questions regarding fairness, labor, and the future for college sports. In the end, the NCAA has to find a balance between all factors, maintaining the educational value of college athletics while also ensuring athletes receive fair treatment and support.