- - Tuesday, April 6, 2021

Your article, “NCAA, college athletes square off at Supreme Court over student compensation” (Web, March 31), shows the desperation, once again, of some groups to secure part of the revenues earned from college athletics. Certain parties are claiming athletes are suffering due to the current NCAA formula of providing forms of financial support to student athletes. It appears that these groups have wrongly promoted their position, misleading the public and now the U.S. Supreme Court.

As a former college football player, when I signed my scholarship it simply proposed with clarity that in exchange for playing the sport, my entire tuition, all my health care, athletic training and housing would be provided. Nowhere did it say that I would be paid any additional compensation. So why are players complaining and signing these agreements?

The charge that they don’t have enough money to survive is grossly misleading. The real reason is that players refuse to live in on-campus housing, and the monthly stipend cannot pay the full rent of most off-campus housing. I recall one of my teammates using his monthly stipend to setup an illegal drug-dealing network. If players could get paid beyond the scholarship, what’s going to stop an athlete from being paid by groups other than the universities? This would definitely increase the number of players being compromised, and would risk the integrity of any sport.

The scholarship is a form a payment and is sufficient if players utilize the campus facilities provided. It is not intended for college athletes who want to live in a penthouse. Paying college athletes would totally change the focus from playing the sport and earning a degree to “show me the money.”

GREG RALEIGH



Washington

Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide